Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That in the case of the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill, Standing Order 208 (Notice of consideration of Lords amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

COCOM

Mr. Stott: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, following the recent review of the operation of COCOM, he is now satisfied that the COCOM rules apply equitably to British firms.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stott: I understand that the recommendations come into force when the right hon. Gentleman signs the documents. He will know that the matter has great ramifications and is causing anxiety to a number of hon. Members. Accordingly, will he have a word with the Leader of the House to try to find time to debate the agreements before the documents are signed?

Mr. Channon: The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I have noticed the desire for a debate in a number of quarters of the House. I would certainly have no objection to that. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the computer software industry has been one of our most conspicuously, successful growth industries? Is he aware that leaders of that industry have expressed serious concern that their export potential might be inhibited if the rules that are suspected to have been agreed are implemented? Can my right hon. Friend give the industry any reassurance?

Mr. Channon: I hope that that is not the case. Industry representatives have been consulted at all stages, and representatives of the software industry were offered the same facilities for consultation as other industries. This is a package. In general I believe it to be in the overall British interest, but if hon. Members wish to raise particular points with me I shall be delighted to look at them.

Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he told me in a recent letter that he was considering mechanisms for restricting or licensing the export of intangible high-technology assets, which is the coy phrase used to describe the information in people's heads. Will he explain how that could be done except by limiting or restricting the freedom of United Kingdom nationals to move abroad?

Mr. Channon: I do not have that point in mind, but if there is an aspect of that issue that I have not answered satisfactorily perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me and I will gladly go into it in detail.

British Leyland (Future Models)

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has had any recent representations from British Leyland about the funding of future car models.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): BL's 1985 corporate plan, which I have just received, deals with a number of matters, including the company's model strategy and proposals as to the funding of that strategy from non-Government sources.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that British Leyland has done very well over the past few years, after a difficult spell in labour relations? Now that British Leyland is well founded, will the majority shareholder — the taxpayers, represented by the Government —assure us that we intend to keep a genuine British manufacturer of cars and that we shall not have merely an assembler of Japanese models? That way lies the strength and future of the British motor industry.

Mr. Lamont: That is certainly the intention of the Government's policy, and that is why we have supported British Leyland. As my hon. Friend knows, in the end it must be up to the management and all who work at British Leyland to continue the great progress and to make themselves into a truly competitive British manufacturer.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not another example of voodoo economics for the Government to give the Nissan car company £200 million of taxpayers' money to set up a factory in the north-east and to try to run down British Leyland at the same time? Nissan will provide possibly 500 jobs at a subsidy of £400,000 for every man and woman employed. If we got that in the mining industry, we would be sailing freely.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure about voodoo economics, but the hon. Gentleman cannot add up if he thinks that that is the assistance that we have given to Nissan. He has a slightly exaggerated view. The Nissan project will not reach full production until 1991, and by then Austin Rover either will, or will not, be fully competitive.

Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that for the company to arrange funding for new model development it is essential to have good strong home and export markets? Does he realise that the problems that the company faces with regard to Spain, in particular, have precluded sales in quantity to that country?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is today answering a


written question detailing the arrangements that will come into force with Spain, and which we hope will lead to an improvement in the situation.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend have any plans for further reducing the Government's equity ownership in the British Leyland group?

Mr. Lamont: It has been stated on many occasions that it is the Government's policy to want all the constituent parts of British Leyland to be returned to private ownership.

Grain Exports

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department exercises any control over exports of grain which form part of the barter deals.

Mr. Channon: No, Sir.

Mr. Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency I have 500 of the most efficient and productive cereal farmers in the world? What—

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Heavily subsidised.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) has an advantage in that he is a farmer representing an urban constituency. What is the point of forcing more and more grain into intervention? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that more export credits and restitutions are granted so that we may export grain to the Third world and even to Soviet Russia?

Mr. Channon: I have a suspicion that most of my hon. Friend's question is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to answer. However, my hon. Friend asked about export credits, and on 3 December we announced that two-year cover is available for grain sales to markets for which extended medium-term coverage is available. Thus, I think that I have gone some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's point.

Small Firms

Mr. Dicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contacts he has with Ministers responsible for small firms' matters in other countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): As the Minister with responsibility for small firms I have met several of my opposite numbers in other countries and in October I attended the eleventh international small business congress in Amsterdam, which is attended by Government Ministers and others concerned with small firms from all over the world.

Mr. Dicks: What account do the Government take of other countries' policies when they are considering policies for small business in this country? Will my hon. Friend give an example of a country which has a particularly good approach to the problem?

Mr. Trippier: We can certainly learn from the experience of other countries, although it is often difficult to replicate that experience exactly, because of the different circumstances that may prevail. However, we can still learn a great deal from the United States, particularly with regard to its attitude towards risk taking.

Mr. Grylls: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study loan guarantee schemes for small firms in other

countries? If so, does he know of any other country in the free world which effectively charges up to 18 per cent. on the guaranteed part of loans, which is the result of the changes that he has made to the loan guarantee scheme?

Mr. Trippier: I particularly studied the loan guarantee scheme when I visited Amsterdam in October. Our loan guarantee scheme is close to that scheme, and is closer to that scheme than to the equivalent scheme in the United States. I also noticed that the Dutch Government were extremely worried about the losses involved in the Government loan scheme — as the Dutch call it — and were possibly going to intervene with the banks to try to reduce the heavy loss rate.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that other countries may have much to learn from us on the subject of policies for small businesses? Does he know that the enterprise allowance scheme is widely welcomed? Is he convinced that there are sufficient funds to meet the demand resulting from that good scheme? Can my hon. Friend give us some figures for the enterprise allowance scheme's success rate in creating jobs?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but I think that he is suffering from the delusion that the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the enterprise allowance scheme, when it is not. However, we have an input through the small firms service, for which I am responsible, in monitoring the success of the enterprise allowance scheme. Indeed, that scheme is widely acknowledged to be a success. I understand that at present the enterprise allowance scheme's failure rate is about one in five, compared with a one in three failure rate for small firms generally.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the short period that this Question Time has lasted his hon. Friends have asked for support and subsidies for farmers, support for small firms, and support for Japanese car factories? How does that compare with the fact that the Prime Minister and each of the Ministers on the Front Bench is constantly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about small firms,.

Mr. Trippier: In the area of small firms the hon. Gentleman suffers from the delusion of adequacy. The truth is that his knowledge of that subject is incredibly sparse. Had he listened more carefully to the Back Benchers who asked me questions on the subject, he would have realised that they were not asking for support. The success of small firms does not necessarily depend on the supply of money. Assistance with marketing and financial control is equally important.

Libya

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the contribution made by trade with Libya to the United Kingdom's balance of payments during 1983 and in 1984 to date; and if he will list the British companies involved.

Mr. Channon: United Kingdom trade with Libya contributed £50·5 million in 1983 and £54·2 million in January to October 1984 to the United Kingdom's visible balance of payments. My Department does not maintain lists of exporters to any market.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister accept that it was nothing more than hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to comment as she did on the NUM's trip to Libya earlier this year when those amounts of money are coming into Britain from Libya? Has any of that money been laundered into the Conservative party?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the difference between trading with a country, which in no way implies an approval of the regime, because we trade with many countries whose behaviour we dislike, and—

Mr. Barron: That is hypocrisy.

Mr. Channon: It is not hypocrisy. If we traded only with countries whose regimes we liked, we would trade with remarkably few. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should repudiate the leader of his party, who, referring to the miners' visit to Libya, said that any offer to them would be an insult to everything that the British Labour movement stands for.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NUM went to a country which does not allow any free trade unions? Can he shed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about trade, not trade unions.

Mr. Greenway: What trade is likely to have come out of the deal between Mr. Scargill and the Libyan regime?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has made his point forcefully. None whatever.

Mr. Ryman: Despite the Minister's nonchalant arrogance in purporting to answer questions, is he aware that Her Majesty's Government have broken off diplomatic relations with Libya and that it is therefore disgraceful that, by implication, we should be receiving the Government's approval in continuing trade with Libya? Is he aware, for example, that the National Coal Board is at the moment training Libyan nationals in computer technology, which is easily adaptable for military purposes? Does that not imply a tacit approval of the Libyan regime?

Mr. Channon: The House will be able to judge whether or not I am arrogant. The House can certainly judge that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that matter. Whether or not we have diplomatic relations with a country, we try not to impede normal exchanges, including normal civil trade, between two countries. That policy was followed by our predecessors just as much as it has been by ourselves.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister satisfied that leaders of Libyan industry who wish to trade with Britain have adequate access to Britain?

Mr. Channon: I have heard no complaints to the contrary.

European Community (Internal Market)

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards eliminating all barriers to trade in the internal market of the European Community.

Mr. Channon: The Government have taken a leading role in the Council of Ministers in eliminating barriers to internal trade. Yesterday we made a major step forward on

simpler documentation for customs purposes—the so-called single administrative document. Other practical measures already secured include many common industrial standards, better opening hours at custom posts and faster clearance of lorries. We shall continue to press vigorously for progress.

Mr. Favell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement yesterday. May we have more details about what the agreement achieves? Will he tell us more about the faster clearance of lorries, which is immensely important to the haulage industry?

Mr. Channon: When it comes into force the single document will replace about 70 forms now needed for goods circulating within the Community. It will reduce and standardise the information which traders must provide and, over a period of years, it will provide savings for traders, Governments and all those involved in trade. I think that it is a step forward which the whole Community will welcome.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Parliament has called for an investigation into the different approaches of customs officers at internal borders? Does he agree that there are differences of approach which we could do well to iron out if trade is to be maximised?

Mr. Channon: There are certainly differences of approach and there are many historical reasons for them. We are making progress in that area with this document and with the measures to facilitate movement at frontiers in general. We shall continue to do so. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you must provide balance.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is about time that the hon. Gentleman tried doing so.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is only a whippersnapper.
When the Minister goes to the Common Market to try to dismantle these barriers to trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are already in it".] I am talking about the Minister going on a trip on a gravy train. Will he, when he goes have a word with the two clever ex-Commissioners, who, during the last two weeks of their tenure of office, have suddenly become vice-Presidents? They have done that to line their pockets to the tune of a further £2,500 a year in pension payments. It is a scandal—

Mr. Speaker: Order—

Mr. Skinner: —and it is a barrier to trade.

Liverpool

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for selective regional aid have been received from firms having business in Liverpool and by firms intending to set up businesses in Liverpool.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Between April 1979 and September 1984 some 300 applications for regional selective assistance were received for projects in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that there have been a record number of bankruptcies in small businesses? On a number of occasions I have written to the Department asking for assistance to provide jobs in an area of high unemployment. In view of that, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that shows that this is yet another failure in the Government's portfolio of policies? When will he consider the genuine problems of businesses in that area and ensure that the Government assist them, if that is the Government's intention? This is supposed to be the Government of small businesses.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier answer when I said that 182 offers have a value of £32 million. That is only selective assistance. On top of that, large amounts of automatic grants and regional development grants have gone to the Liverpool travel-to-work area. Whatever else Liverpool has lacked, it has not lacked money from the Government.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great resentment in areas which do not receive regional assistance but have high unemployment—.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply to all hon. Members. The question is about Liverpool.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that many places such as Liverpool are treated generously compared with other areas of high unemployment, which receive no assistance?

Mr. Lamont: That is no doubt why my hon. Friend supported our decision to cut £300 million from the regional policy budget.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will not Liverpool be hit, like many other regions, by the cut in regional aid under the new regime that will operate? Will not Liverpool, other parts of the north, Scotland and Wales, have less money going into their economies because of the massive cuts in regional aid on which the Government have embarked?

Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Liverpool will continue to receive the highest status. It will qualify in the inner tier for assistance automatically. That assistance will be much better spent because it will be much more closely related to the creation of jobs. If we are to spend money on regional policies, it is sensible to relate it to jobs.

Mr. Ryman: Will not the dilemma of Liverpool under the Government's new plans for regional aid be similar to that in many other parts of the country, especially the north-east of England, where, because of a refusal to honour a previous commitment, companies which made plans long ago for capital expansion involving job creation must now change their plans because the Government have peremptorily introduced a new policy on regional aid, on the completely false criterion of travel-to-work areas?

Mr. Lamont: It is incorrect to say that the Government introduced these changes suddenly. There was a long period of consultation. Furthermore, the changes in the map were accompanied by generous transitional provisions which take account of the hon. Gentleman's point that companies may have been in the middle of formulating investment plans. Those are catered for in the transitional provisions

Mr. John Smith: I assume that the Minister considered the position of Liverpool carefully in anticipation of

answering this question. How much less money will be available to Liverpool as a result of the recent changes in regional development policy? What does it cost to create a job in an enterprise zone?

Mr. Lamont: I cannot answer either question.

Mr. John Smith: Why not?

Mr. Lamont: We have not made an estimate of how each area will be affected by the changes in regional policy. Expenditure on regional policy is demand-led and depends on companies putting forward projects, as it always has. It is impossible to make an assessment for each travel-to-work area.

British Industry (Shareholdings)

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has plans to seek to promote wider ownership of shares in British industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher): We have just completed the biggest single step so far this century towards wider ownership of shares in British industry. More than 2 million people purchased BT shares, including many first-time investors and 184,000 employees of BT. We shall continue to encourage wider ownership of shares by employees and by individual investors.

Mr. Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pleasure that most Conservative Members feel at the success of the British Telecom sale? Is he further aware that we hope that the Government will pursue a policy of extending share ownership to a wider proportion of the British public?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The Government will take his advice, not least through more privatisation.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that, in addition to the generous price at which BT shares were offered to the public, one reason for the great success of the sale was the change in marketing and the determined effort made publicly to sell those shares? When the Government prepare their White Paper on investment protection, will they examine the old legislation and, while ensuring investor protection, try to relax the rules on advertising and on prospectuses to ensure that similar efforts can be made for other share sales?

Mr. Fletcher: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are planning to replace the existing Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. That will be the subject of a White Paper to be published early next year. We have learnt two lessons from the British Telecom privatisation: first, that there are many hundreds of thousands of willing investors in Britain; and, secondly, the stockbroking profession has learnt that by advertising its wares on a much bigger scale than usual it can ensure that those who wish to buy shares, including small investors, can do so.

Mr. Hanley: While congratulating my hon. Friend on the success of the British Telecom issue, and on the fact that nearly 2 million people are shareholders for the first time, including more than 180,000 employees of British Telecom, may I ask whether he has considered an education programme for the new shareholders in the light of today's press reports that some


understand the nature of a contract on the Stock Exchange? Will my hon. Friend consider running a programme of education about the nature of share ownership in conjunction with the Stock Exchange?

Mr. Fletcher: I am almost tempted, in a lighthearted way, to ask my hon. Friend whether he might not have an interest in such an educational programme. The sale of shares in this way and on such a scale is an educational programme in itself for the whole country, and not least for the Opposition parties.

Mr. Williams: In view of the Minister's pleasure at the sale of BT, will he tell us whether he would be pleased with, and would re-employ, a broker who sold his shares for half price—or would he run to a solicitor to take action for incompetence and negligence?

Mr. Fletcher: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has the wrong end of the stick. It is incorrect to conclude that the whole offer can be made at today's price or at the level of any increase in price since the offer was made. The current price reflects the marginal demand — that is the excess of willing buyers over willing sellers. That has always been the case in an issue such as this.

Small Businesses

Mr. Ashdown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage greater use of official and commercially collected data in connection with the provision of statistics on the small business sector; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: The findings of the studies that regularly appear in British Business are that there was a net surplus of 112,000 small businesses over the past four years and that these firms create or preserve more jobs than their share of the labour market suggests. We take every opportunity to publicise these facts.

Mr. Ashdown: I asked whether the Minister would consider greater use of the official statistics. Does he not recall that, at the small business conference in Amsterdam in October this year, he rightly said that reliable and accurate data, which he admitted we did not have, on the life and death cycle of small businesses, are to use his own words, the
life blood of governmental policy-making"?
In the light of that brave statement, and of his agreement that the official information is inadequate and should be improved, is not his answer somewhat complacent? When will he match that rhetoric with some action?

Mr. Trippier: The stock of reliable statistics is improving all the time, and I referred to that in my substantive answer to the substantive question. I admit that there is a paucity of available statistics for employment in small firms, although that is getting better. For example, we have established that the figure for self-employment is 2·25 million, which is the highest figure on record. My difficulty, as Minister with responsibility for small firms, is that I have to balance on the one hand the paucity of statistics in that particular sector with the fact that I wish to try to reduce the form-filling burden on small firms, which they regard as a handicap.

Mr. Richard Page: Are the collected statistics used by the small firms service? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with

the expertise in the breadth, and particularly the depth, of the service that is offered by the small firms service, particularly through the local enterprise agencies?

Mr. Trippier: I have said on the Floor of the House before that I am extremely proud of the expertise in the small firms service. There has been a rapid growth in the local enterprise agencies. There has to be a close relationship between the small firms service and the local enterprise agencies. I have always believed that the directors of the enterprise agencies should be generalists and that the small firms counsellors should be specialists. I am taking steps to ensure that that happens and is successful.

Power Engineering Industry

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to assist the power engineering industry.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The industry is supported by SFI assistance under the Science and Technology Act and by Industry Act grants. Many overseas projects have also benefited from Government assistance in the form of export credits and aid and trade provision.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that this industry, particularly in my constituency, still continues to shed jobs at a high and regrettable rate? Is he further aware that the industry is suffering because of the collapse of domestic and overseas demand? Will the Government look seriously at their role in ensuring that we have a power engineering industry in the future, which means that we shall have to bring forward, with Government assistance, plans for the refurbishment or rebuilding of power stations in the near future, and not leave it for the next decade?

Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions about domestic power station orders are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. As regards support in export markets, we shall continue to support the industry. We have been successful. GEC, a company located in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1984 won more turbine generator orders than any other company in the world. It is the world leader. However, we recognise that the market position remains uncertain, but the company has had a lot of help, including £100 million from the aid and trade provision since 1980. There has been a lot of Government support, and we shall continue to do all that we can to help.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the few remaining effective firms in the gas turbine industry, is situated in my constituency? Is he further aware that the real costs facing such industries in developing new models to enter world markets are high? If there is to be any Government support to the turbine industry, my hon. Friend should look carefully at the support needed to develop new models to beat our overseas competitors.

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says. Since 1980, under the Science and Technology Act, £11 million has gone towards supporting this sort of development. We shall, of course, continue to do what we can to help.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be in a position to publish the Silbertson report on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Channon: The report was published on 13 December.

Mr. Kirkwood: A cursory analysis of the report shows many parts where the conclusions seem to be based on speculative hypotheses rather than on firm evidence, and where the policy recommendations seem to fail to take account of the implications for some of the areas affected by the report's conclusions. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take other counsel as well as consider the recommendations in the Silbertson report before agreeing to phase out the agreement rapidly?

Mr. Channon: Most definitely. Before any decision is taken, I hope to obtain the views of the industry and all the other people who are interested in this topic.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a sunrise and not a sunset industry? Is he further aware that the industry is not afraid of fair free trade, but that many non-tariff barriers are imposed on British textile exports? Until those non-tariff barriers can be eliminated, some type of MFA is required.

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's views on that topic, and we shall bear them very much in mind.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that the proposals in the report met with a chorus of criticism from the British textile industry and that his reply during the last Trade and Industry Question Time gave rise to considerable concern? Will give a clear assurance, without equivocation, reservations, winks or nods, that the British Government are totally committed to the renegotiation of the MFA to ensure that there is no unfair import penetration and to protect British textile jobs?

Mr. Channon: I read accounts which were critical of the report and the comments which were favourable. At the moment the Government are merely consulting. Surely we are entitled to consult and consider all the evidence before any decisions are reached.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Is my right hon. Friend not conerned that the report appears to support and enourage the export of British jobs? Should not such a policy be resisted with great vigour?

Mr. Channon: Put like that, my hon. Friend makes a very persuasive argument. I do not necessarily accept his preface, but I must repeat to the House that all views will be gratefully received. We shall consider them carefully. The Government will have to make their position clear to the House when the decisions have been arrived at.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that much of the criticism focused on the report has pointed out that its conclusions are flawed because of the doubtful assumptions and methodology adopted by its author? Will that fact be borne in mind? Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that the Government have not reached a conclusion about whether they want a new MFA? Is it not high time that the Government committed themselves clearly to another MFA and told the House of that commitment?

Mr. Channon: Of course we shall tell the House. The report was received only six days ago. Surely we are entitled to study the report and the evidence in favour of more liberalisation, and the evidence in favour of less liberalisation. That seems to be perfectly reasonable, and I believe that any sensible Government would wish to study all the evidence before coming to a conclusion.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although we appreciate the fact that he must study this newly published report, a word of encouragement to the textile industry, which during the past 20 years has suffered traumatically, would be much appreciated? The industry urgently needs not just one renewal of the MFA, but possibly two.

Mr. Channon: From the exchanges in the House today, I am left in no doubt about the feeling that exists on both sides on this issue. It is something which I and the Government must consider. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The textile industry has done extremely well and has good prospects for the future.

Child Pushchairs

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with safety standards relating to child buggy pushchairs.

Mr. Fletcher: No, I am not. That is why I propose to remake the existing safety regulations on pushchairs. The consultation process is almost complete, and I hope to lay draft new regulations before the House in the spring.

Mr. Chapman: While welcoming my hon. Friend's reply and applauding the initiative that he has taken, may I ask him to confirm that some designs of collapsible child buggies have caused serious accidents and that, by definition, they are pushchairs and therefore come within the 1978 regulations — a fact which apparently some trading standards officers do not appreciate?

Mr. Fletcher: I take my hon. Friend's point. There should be no doubt in trading standards officers' minds that pushchairs are included in the existing regulations, as they will be in the new regulations.

Insurance Market

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making together with other European Economic Community Ministers in securing a free market for insurance within the European Economic Community.

Mr. Channon: Finance Ministers discussed the proposed directive on freedom to provide non-life insurance last week. Negotiations are continuing on this directive, and on this and in general we shall continue to press for rapid progress towards a free Community market for insurance.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When will the EEC give substance to its claim to be a common market? When will the European Court take effective action against those countries which continue to block our insurance industry? The British people are becoming tired of paying an expensive membership fee to a club which continues to block our trade in that way.

Mr. Channon: No one would dispute what my hon. Friend has said. There are four court cases pending. The


British Government are intervening in each of them. I am told that the oral hearings in the first two cases have been set down for next March.

Mr. Gould: The Minister has again fobbed us off with a meaningless answer on that point. Our trade with the EEC in manufactures is running at an annual deficit of £9 billion. Is it not time that he insisted that we had proper access for the British insurance industry and other providers of financial services to the Common Market? Has he not allowed the Germans and others who have been obstructive for such a long time to get away with it for far too long?

Mr. Channon: I have given the best and most truthful answer to the House. Whether the hon. Member likes it is neither here nor there. It is all very well for him to say that I must insist on certain things taking place. He knows perfectly well that there is no way of insisting in this case. Nothing will happen until those court cases are settled. He knows that just as well as I do. There is no point in pretending otherwise.

Mr. Budgen: When did the EEC first promise to secure a free market for insurance?

Mr. Channon: I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite answer, but my view is that we are entitled to freedom of insurance under the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that it is difficult enough to get money out of insurance companies in this country? It would be a dead loss to try to get money out of insurance companies in the EC countries.

Mr. Channon: My idea is that British companies should have more opportunities abroad, rather than the other way round.

Small Firms (Government Contracts)

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific steps Her Majesty's Government take to faciltate the access of small firms to Government contracts.

Mr. Trippier: For lower value contracts firms need no longer go through the Department's approval procedures before winning orders. The threshold was initially set at £2,000 two years ago and has since been raised to £10,000. Above that level, non-approved firms can tender for contracts which are not urgent, subject to being approved afterwards if they are successful. Departments have been asked to rotate invitations to tender among firms on their approved lists so that more firms get an opportunity to bid. For firms seeking approval we have standardised the financial and general information that Departments require.

Mr. Hamilton: I am sure that the House will welcome that encouraging news, but what proportion of Government procurement contracts go to small firms? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with that figure?

Mr. Trippier: Records are not kept at the moment of the details of which business goes to small firms, but we have asked the Ministry of Defence to supply information, through a survey that it is currently conducting, as to how much of its procurement business goes to firms employing fewer than 200 people. The findings of that survey will, of course, be of great interest to us.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister accept that such records should be kept for all industries? Does he agree that the size and power of the Government's procurement system makes it the most potent weapon available to the Government for assisting small industries? Surely it is even more powerful than the Government's much-vaunted 103 measures put together. When will he take more strenuous action to use the Government's procurement system to assist small industries more effectively?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharitable to the Government. We have done a great deal in the past five years to improve access for small firms to Government procurement contracts. In my answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) I referred to another initiative that we have taken. I appreciate that it is important and valuable that we adopt such an approach, and that is why we are doing something about it.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend ensure—I am sure that he will—that when small firms deservedly win contracts with Government Departments the Departments settle their accounts on time? Is he aware that it is becoming a common complaint that small firms are not having their accounts settled by large firms as quickly as they should be?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is right. I take every available opportunity to try to get the message across that large firms should pay the bills of small firms on time wherever possible. I accept that there are a number of laggards. If my hon. Friend is aware of any examples of Government Departments not paying the bills of small firms on time, I shall be grateful if he will let me have the evidence, whereupon I shall investigate the matter.

Mr. Williams: If this basic information is not available, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that it is available in future?

Mr. Trippier: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply to an earlier supplementary question. I said that we were taking the initiative of asking — [Interruption.] That is a good example. There is much business there that is available for small firms. Having taken the initiative, it will be interesting to compare how much public procurement business goes to small firms in Britain as against that going to similar firms in the United States.

Telecommunications Equipment

Mr. Coombs: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making on removing barriers to trade in telecommunications' equipment between European Economic Community member states.

Mr. Channon: The Government have strongly encouraged the development of a Community telecommunications programme aimed at expanding intra-Community trade. Two important measures recently agreed are the urgent development of harmonised standards for terminal equipment and a recommendation that operators should open up their tendering procedures to suppliers in other member states.

Mr. Coombs: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about terminals, but will he give the House an


assurance that the proposals that he has mentioned will be implemented and brought to fruition in 1985? Does he agree that reciprocal trading agreements for other telecommunications equipment such as PABXs, which directly affect firms in my constituency of Swindon, which wish to manufacture and market them, would be of advantage in creating inward investment and, therefore, jobs, and in providing more export opportunities throughout the European Common Market?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case in the second part of his question. As for the first part, it is the British Government's hope that that will be done in 1985. That is not entirely within our gift, but I hope very much that that will be done.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Great though the progress may be on our side in liberalising the purchasing arrangements in Government telecommunication contracts, is the Minister aware that in the EEC as a whole there may not be anything like a similar desire and determination to do likewise? Will he note that the French Government have clearly taken no steps to liberalise and open their ordering and tendering system? Will he undertake to the House to obtain matching agreements so that there are clear commitments from our European partners, especially the French?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about reciprocity. He has said that the British Government's attitude is not always the same as that of other member states. I shall be grateful if he will have a word with those sitting beside him, so that he can understand some of the problems.

Mr. Conway: Where telecommunication developments require certification by the division within my right hon. Friend's Department, especially if they are inventions of small firms in non-assisted areas such as my constituency of Shrewsbury, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the applications will be processed with the greatest possible speed?

Mr. Channon: I had better look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said. I shall consider it and reply to him sympathetically and quickly.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take to seek to ensure that in 1985 the United Kingdom exports more manufactured goods than it imports.

Mr. Channon: There is no means, short of direct controls incompatible with our interests as a trading nation, of doing what the hon. Member wants.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that this country's wealth has always depended on the manufacturing industries and that it is essential that we get back into a surplus of trade in those industries as soon as possible? Does he further accept that many Opposition Members and people in the country at large are very concerned at the Government's apparent disregard of the fact that we have been trading in deficit on manufactured goods?

Mr. Channon: What is far more important than a surplus or deficit in any one part of our trading account is whether we are making any progress in trying to increase

the productivity of the British manufacturing industry and, indeed, other industries. We are making considerable strides, in that our productivity has been increasing in the past three years at more than twice the rate achieved by either France or Germany. That is a creditable achievement.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's obsession with mercantalist economics is typical of its attitude to economic policy in general, and that what is required is recognition of the fact that the contribution to be made by the export of services to our economic future is as important, if not more so, that of manufacturing?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the voodoo economics practised by Opposition Members, but what we should like to see, of course, is a good performance — [Interruption.] It is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) today—

Mr. Skinner: And the hon. Gentleman yesterday.

Mr. Channon: What he said yesterday, the hon. Gentleman says today.
It is very important to the British economy that we should try to make all our industry competitive, and we should try to do as well as we can with all sectors of our industry. Both manufacturing and services are important.

Mr. Crowther: Does the Minister accept that the rate of productivity in many British manufacturing industries is now very high and that the real problem about competitiveness is in areas that are within the scope of the Government's own policies; for example, energy prices and the alarmingly imbalanced exchange rates between sterling and European currencies?

Mr. Channon: In fact, at the present rate of sterling in many parts of the world, British goods are more competitive than ever before, rather than less competitive. This is because so many currencies are linked to the dollar. It is perfectly true that other factors affect competitiveness, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to recognise the steps that we have taken to try to help businesses, via taxation reforms, the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the control of public spending—which I emphasise. There are major efforts to help British industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, important as our manufacturing base is—as long as it suits its product to what the market actually wants—our service industries in the export market do not have the import element within them that most of our manufacturing industries do, and that makes them even more important in terms of balance of payments to this country?

Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend says, it is absolutely right that our service industries are providing more substantial amounts for our balance of payments and our export effort. I am sure that that trend will continue over the next few years.

Mr. Gould: Is not the acid test of our international competitiveness how well we actually perform in international markets? Is the Minister completely unaware of the fact that the deficit in our trade and manufactured goods which appeared for the first time last year threatens


already this year to more than double? Is that not so alarming a trend as to dent even the Minister's complacency?

Mr. Channon: We have had this discussion before. So far, I have been unable to convince the hon. Gentleman that, although there has been a considerable surplus in the past few years, it is impossible at all stages to have a surplus in oil, manufactured goods and everything else—

Mr. Gould: Rubbish.

Mr. Channon: It is not rubbish. If we did that, we would have to export even more capital. When the hon. Gentleman is not whingeing about one thing, he is whingeing about the other.

Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend confirm that during 1985 the Government will have to make a decision about participation by Britain in the American manned space station programme? Is he aware that that participation is vital to our manufacturing industry over a wide range of high technology products? When will he be in a position to make a statement about participation in that very important programme?

Mr. Channon: I hope that we shall be in a position to make a statement early next year.

Nationalised Industries (Accounting Practices)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the accounting practices within the nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes, I am satisfied with the accounting practices employed by those industries within my Department's responsibility in preparing statutory accounts.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister ever intervened to direct British Shipbuilders as to the way in which it prepares its accounts?

Mr. Lamont: I have never issued a directive to British Shipbuilders about the preparation of its accounts, although a couple of years ago we had discussions about the presentation of results as between different divisions.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 21.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A number of hon. Members wished to ask supplementary questions on my question No. 20.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members—well over 40 of them — wish to ask the remaining questions on the Order Paper.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods.

Mr. Norman Lamont: In the first 10 months of this year there was a deficit of £3·7 billion.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's trading record is the worst in British trading history and is yet further proof of the abysmal failure of the Government's economic strategy? Is he not ashamed to be a member of such an inefficient, uncompetitive Government? Is it not time that the Department of Trade and Industry team resigned en masse so that Britian can regain leadership in world markets?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will have already heard the exchange of questions on this at Question Time. We have had a surplus on current account in each of the past four years. We would have had a surplus this year but for the miners' strike, and we expect a surplus on current account next year. That is a pretty good record.

Soviet Union

Mr. Terlezki: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on trade with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Channon: In the first 10 months of 1984 the level of trade between our two countries increased by 32 per cent. I consider that the prospects for trade with the Soviet Union are better now than they have been for a number of years, and I hope that this trend will be maintained.

Mr. Terlezki: As Mr. Gorbachev is visiting our free, democratic country this week, can my hon. Friend say whether he has already met or is about to meet Mr. Gorbachev so as to ensure that Anglo-Soviet trade can be increased in some areas, with the exception of certain scientific, technical and industrial equipment which it could be against our future interests to sell?

Mr. Channon: I have met Mr. Gorbachev once this week. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and I, among others, are giving him dinner tomorrow. One of the main topics so far has been Anglo-Soviet trading relations and I hope that we shall be able to make important progress in that regard.

Mr. Heffer: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to ask a question?

Mr. Heffer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult due to the rabble beside me.
Is the Minister aware that, although many of us have severe criticisms of the Soviet internal regime and believe that there must be greater democracy and human rights there, we nevertheless believe that it is vital for the interests of this country that trade with the Soviet Union should increase? Will the Minister give a guarantee that in tomorrow's discussions with the Soviet representatives every avenue will be explored to see what can he done to improve trading relations with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.

Share Ownership

Mr. Hayward: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to provide encouragement for greater employee participation through share ownership schemes in the enterprises under his control.

Mr. Fletcher: As I have already told the House today, we have just completed the biggest single step so far this


century towards wider ownership of shares in British industry. Over 2 million people purchased British Telecom shares, including many first-time investors and 184,000 employees of BT. We shall continue to encourage wider ownership of shares both by employees and by individual investors.

Mr. Hayward: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but may I ask him whether he has any expectation that, in the near future, share ownership in this country will rise to the levels that currently exist in France and West Germany?

Mr. Fletcher: We would be extremely pleased to see that happen. We are taking other steps, too. Privatisation

is very important, but changes are also taking place in the Stock Exchange and in the financial services sector in general which will encourage wider share ownership.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister recollect, in relation to BT, that there were warnings that those who made multiple applications could face actions for fraud? Can he tell us that his Department intends to initiate such legal action, bearing in mind the Prime Minister's injunction that the law must be obeyed? Or is it only working men and women who have to obey the law, and not the Government's friends in the City?

Mr. Fletcher: There is no justification for that remark. My Department is investigating very carefully the cases that have been brought to our attention.

RAF Basic Trainer

Mr. David Ashby: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ministerial decision not to select the Hunting Firecracker as a basic trainer.
In an answer yesterday to a written question about the replacement of the RAF basic trainer, the Minister for Defence Procurement rejects the all-British Hunting Firecracker and short-lists a Brazilian and a Swiss aircraft as the contenders for the contract. That decision has astounded many hon. Members and many in the country who cannot understand why a British-designed and British-built aircraft, the Firecracker, which fully meets all the design specifications of the RAF, should be rejected in favour of foreign contenders built by countries that are not even members of NATO.
There has been a mine of misinformation about the contenders. In the written answer, the Minister said that the foreign aircraft had advantages in cost and performance. Clearly, he has not properly evaluated the costs. The Brazilian aircraft is heavily subsidised by that Government, which in turn has been propped up by the western Governments. We would therefore pay twice over for that aircraft. Each of the Swiss planes—the Pilatus —will cost up to £300,000 more because, unfairly, it has been built greatly to exceed the RAF specifications. In other words, one pays one's money and takes one's choice. If the RAF were going to change the rules in midair, the other contenders should have been told. One does not learn to drive in a racing car, which is what the Swiss Pilatus is: one learns in a British Maestro.
The Hunting Firecracker is British-designed and British-built. It is entirely financed by British entrepreneurial enterprise—by people who are prepared to risk their own money.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is applying for leave to move the Adjournment of the House. He should not be making detailed arguments.

Mr. Ashby: I take your point, Mr. Speaker. This is an application under Standing order No. 10. I shall attempt not to put the argument but to present the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The relevant words are "urgent", "specific" and "important".

Mr. Ashby: The aircraft was to be built in an area of mining decline where pits are closing, which faces 20 to

30 per cent. unemployment and where jobs are really needed. The enthusiasm and the great hopes of the people involved in the company and the area have been dashed. The contract is to go to a foreign aircraft manufactured under licence either by the great nationalised giant of Shorts or the great denationalised giant of British Aerospace. Whichever one it is, the British taxpayer pays for it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he must not go into the detailed arguments that he might advance if the House gave him permission to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the matter. He must make out his case for its urgent consideration.

Mr. Ashby: This is of course an urgent matter because of the answer that has been given and because of the decisions that must be taken. In terms of cost, the Hunting Firecracker — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — this matter relates directly to the written answer. Hunting Firecracker offered to come back with reduced costs but was told that that was not necessary. The Swiss and Brazilians are unfairly being given the opportunity to re-tender. In terms of performance, it was acknowledged by the RAF that the Hunting Firecracker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. He must not go into the details of the matter. He is well outside the rules. Will he now come to a conclusion?

Mr. Ashby: In terms of cost and in terms of performance, Hunting Firecracker is being treated unfairly. That is why it is essential that we debate the issue. There has been a debate in another place and it is right that the matter be debated here as well. That is essential to the future of the British aircraft industry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks lease to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ministerial decision not to select the Hunting Firecracker as a basic trainer.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that I do not consider that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Teachers (Independent Pay Review) (Scotland)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent pay review body with powers to fix the annual rates of pay for teachers, their conditions of service and related matters in Scotland.
The Houghton committee of inquiry reported its findings on the pay of non-university teachers to the Secretary of State for Scotland in December 1974. The committee recommended salary increases of 30.5 per cent. for Scottish day school teachers with effect from May 1974. [Interruption.] The committee concluded that further independent examination of teachers' pay would be necessary. [Interruption.] I should like to quote from paragraph 274 of the Houghton committee report.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is saying, because Tory Members, who have no interest in Scottish education, are talking so loudly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the whole House wishes to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker. The Houghton committee said:
However good the information, and whatever the improvements in negotiating machinery, there are bound to be occasions when a further independent examination of teachers' pay is needed. We recommend that there should be periodic reviews on the lines of this Inquiry perhaps every seven years. Such inquiries would have as their task the total re-examination of the levels of pay and salary structures in the teaching profession, assessing not only the validity of current internal differentials but also adjustments to salary levels in the light of social and educational circumstances at the time.
Lord Houghton later opined that seven years was inappropriate and that there should be quinquennial reviews. From July 1974 to July 1979, the index of retail prices increased by 109 per cent., whereas the salaries of Scottish teachers rose by only 72 per cent. Inevitably, in July 1979 the salaries of Scottish teachers were remitted to the Standing Commission on Pay Comparability—the Clegg commission. That commission reported in March 1980 and awarded increases totalling 18·2 per cent. in two phases, the first from 1 January 1980 and the second from 1 September 1980.
Since September 1980, the erosion that followed Houghton has inexorably followed Clegg. The index of retail prices at September 1980 stood at 270·2 and at September 1984 at 355·5—an increase of 31·6 per cent. Teachers' salaries have increased by only 23·2 per cent. over the same period, a drop of 8·4 per cent., or about £821 in an average teacher's salary. Teachers' pay has fared worse in relation to average earnings. While those in work increased their earnings by about 39 per cent. between August 1980 and August 1984, teachers' pay rose by 23·2 per cent. — a differential of 16·2 per cent., which is the equivalent of £1,584 in average teachers' salaries.
Obviously, a teacher has no more right than anyone else to an immutable salary relativity, but movement up or down must be related to changes in the nature of the job —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman consideration; it is difficult to hear him at this end of the Chamber.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Scottish joint negotiating committee has just produced a report which confirms that, within the last five years, the workload of Scottish teachers has increased substantially. That report was compiled by a joint teacher-management working party, and was accepted unanimously by the full Scottish joint negotiating committee, which includes representatives of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That report covers changes in the curriculum, the nature of teaching, discipline and administration. In particular it focuses attention on increased teacher workload in and out of school and on the greater stress and pressure so prevalent in our classrooms today.
That report concluded that, unless pay, conditions, staffing and resources are improved, the morale of teachers will continue to decline and the education service will deteriorate. In that atmosphere, educational development will surely perish.
The current salaries negotiating machinery is incapable of producing fair results, as the arbitration report in 1982 pointed out. That report admitted that teachers were due an increase of about 11 per cent., but notwithstanding that, the arbiters accepted the "ability to pay" argument and awarded only 6 per cent. rather than the 11 per cent. they considered due. In so doing, they proved that neither negotiation nor arbitration can provide for teachers a means of securing a fair evaluation of their skills and efforts.
It is nevertheless necessary that salary negotiations continue, because only the management and the teachers' sides are sensitive to the changing needs of the service. The negotiating machinery cannot withstand the pressure of financial restraint imposed annually by Government for reasons unconnected with the value of teachers' work. Teachers cannot be regarded as a rearguard as inflation rises and as a vanguard—setting the good example—as inflation falls. An independent review body established every five years would guarantee a limit to the extent to which teachers could fall behind other similarly qualified professions and would give an opportunity for fair adjustment. That is all that teachers ask. How much more effective teachers would be if they could channel all their energies into the classroom and leave the streets to others and other causes!
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Gordon Wilson and Mr. James Wallace.

TEACHERS (INDEPENDENT PAY REVIEW) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to establish an independent pay review body with powers to fix the annual rates of pay for teachers, their conditions of service and related matters in Scotland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Local Authority Capital Expenditure

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Tuesday 18 December under Standing Order No. 10 to discuss:
The statements made on 18 December relating to local authorities' capital expenditure in England and Wales.
There are a number of very important reasons why this debate should take place today: its importance to millions of people; its importance in respect of local democracy; its importance to the building and construction industry and, not least, to those who work in it. The debate will give the House of Commons the opportunity to vote upon yesterday's statements about local government capital investment and to record its views on the Government's abysmal management of these matters, which affect millions of people in this country.
The Government's record is one of broken promises, of regular changes of mind, of misleading statements and of prevarication and delay which add up to incompetence in the management by the Government of this crucial area of local government activity. The Tory policies of stop-go of the l950s and early 1960s pale into insignificance when seen beside this Government's performance since 1979. As a result of that performance, this country is now rapidly sliding back to an era of private affluence for some and public squalor for many. A real crisis exists now in housing and the situation is deteriorating rapidly. The crisis affects people who own their own homes, tenants of private landlords and council house tenants, too.
Many recent studies, including those by the Policy Studies Institute and the National Economic Development Office, have shown the continuing and rising need for more public investment in housing. The present backlog exists both in the public and private sector, both of which depend upon support through the national housing investment programme. There are over 1 million households on waiting lists for council accommodation, of which over 200,000 households are overcrowded; almost 250,000 households share accommodation; 190,000 people await sheltered accommodation; 7,000 families await specialised disabled accommodation.
According to the English house condition survey, over 1 million dwellings are unfit for human habitation; almost 400,000 lack basic amenities; over 500,000 require repairs costing more than £7,000 per dwelling; and 2.5 million require repairs costing in excess of £2,000. A particular worry—it should be a worry to the whole House—is the increasing level of homelessness and the escalating cost to the taxpayer of board and lodging accommodation payments and the increasing use of hostels and hotels to accommodate homeless families. Over 80,000 households will be accepted as homeless this year. Many more are refused help.
Defective housing is also widespread in the public sector and the level of slum clearance is at an all-time low. Government policy means that the current year will see the lowest number of council house completions ever recorded. As I said yesterday, the best year of the Government's record produced 214,000 starts in the public and private sectors. In the lowest year of achievement of the previous Labour Government, that total was 264,000 starts—50,000 more.
In a letter to the Prime Minister on 2 November this year, the president of the Building Employers Federation condemned reports of the possibility of capital spending on housing being cut by £600 million in the coming financial year. That is, in effect, what has happened. He claimed that such a reduction was equivalent to 18 per cent. of the total housing programme and to the loss of at least 75,000 jobs in building and construction. He went on:
A further cut in housing capital would do untold damage to the industry and would be seen as one more blow in a sustained campaign to undermine the confidence of the British construction industry.
The National Home Improvement Council said:
It is incredible to think that, while housing is steadily rotting away, local authorities have ready money … but are not allowed to use it for putting housing in order. It is unbelievable that this state of affairs is allowed to exist, especially when money spent on improving our houses not only maintains our standard of living, but also creates jobs as no other industry can.
Those views are shared by the Federation of Master Builders—the paymasters of the Conservative party—the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, the British construction materials industry, the Confederation of Building Material Producers, the CBI and the TUC. Indeed, they are shared by everyone associated with the management, building and construction of housing and with the building and construction industry.
The Secretary of State for the Environment tried to argue yesterday that nothing had changed. That can only be described as an attempt to mislead the House. In the current year, £3,244 million was allocated to local authorities, new towns and the Housing Corporation. The revised projection for next year is a reduction of £188 million. However, in a statement to the press a few weeks ago, the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State tried to present that as a reduction of only £65 million compared with the original projection.
The year-on-year cut of £188 million excluded any allowance for inflation. If that is taken into account—and taking the Government's figure of 5 per cent inflation —the real terms reduction is as much as £350 million, or 11 per cent.
Furthermore, while capital receipts were expected to rise by £430 million gross, £310 million net, that was to be clawed back by a reduction in the Treasury contribution from £1,644 million in the current financial year to £1,326 million next year. Therefore, taking the two differences together, the total cut in the money available to local authorities is well over £600 million — a cut in real terms of about 20 per cent. That is what the Secretary of State was telling the House yesterday and that is why he should not have been surprised at the reception that he was given from both sides.
The Government have tried to work a con trick in saying that gross housing provision is being maintained. That is simply not the case.
Indeed, £1,600 million of housing investment programme allocation and 20 per cent. of local receipts mean a housing cash limit of £324 million, compared with more than £1 billion in the current financial year. Looked at that way, the cut is in excess of £700 million in the money that the Treasury is putting into the housing programme. We are told that this is being done to maintain the cash limit for 1985–86. but I suspect, as do many in housing, that that cash limit is already as good as broken by resources committed for the coming financial year. To


suggest that it will somehow be maintained is ridiculous. If the limit were enforced in that way, the Government would have to declare, in effect, a total and obligatory moratorium now. I challenge the Government to say whether that is the reality.
The Cambridge Econometrics study that is used by most organisations, including many in the building industry and the private sector, equates £500 million of expenditure with 65,000 jobs in the construction industry and the economy as a whole. If cuts in excess of £1 billion are put into effect, the loss of jobs is likely to exceed 100,000.
The Government have got all this wrong. Their main argument is that the action is necessary to prevent overspending. But no local authority can overspend because, by definition, an authority must balance its budget. In so far as overspend exists at all in the Treasury's mind—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has used the phrase "voodoo economics"—it is simply an attempt to match the real world of local authority services and provision, and the needs of people and our infrastructure, with the increasingly unreal world of Treasury economics and accounting.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what the real economic effect would be of letting local authorities spend their capital receipts—their own money? What does he think the sound macro-economic arguments are against that proposal? We have yet to hear from the Secretary of State or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer any convincing arguments on the ground of macro-economic policy as to why the capital expenditure of local authorities, financed wholly from their own capital receipts and assets, should be controlled in the Government's increasingly draconian, arbitrary and unfair fashion.
Even the Financial Times is wholly unpersuaded of the sense of the Government's case. It described yesterday's announcement as
a particularly mean-spirited application of the Government's heads-we-win, tails-you-lose approach to local authoritities".

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to share with the House his view on the following point? He has acknowledged, and none of us perhaps would dispute, that an enormous number of people want rented accommodation. Will he therefore take this opportunity to declare from thae Dispatch Box tht if his party was re-elected to office, it would repeal the shorthold provisions of the Housing Act 1980 which provide private rented accommodation for those in need?

Dr. Cunningham: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He abused the intervention. It was not even relevant to what I am discussing. I am in the middle of advancing an argument about expenditure of capital receipts to the Secretary of State.
Of course, the Government will argue that they are cash-limiting capital expenditure by local authorities and in doing so they will act to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, since, if, local authorities cannot invest their capital receipts, they lend them to the markets

or the banks, or use them to repay existing debt. In that way the size of the net total of public sector borrowing is reduced.
There is the gravest suspicion that the Treasury is using capital receipts as a back-door method of massaging down the PSBR figures and of indirectly financing Government debt. But only practitioners of voodoo economics—to use the colourful and accurate phrase of the hon. Member for Selly Oak—would regard that as either justifiable or sensible. It is nonsense, economically and socially, to withhold those capital receipts from use in local government where they could be put to effective use in the regeneration of the British economy, housing people and creating jobs and employment in our economy.
We are entitled to ask, and the House is entitled to know, what has changed since 3 November 1982 when, during the debate on the Loyal Address, the Prime Minister said:
We need more capital spending by local government and in the public sector generally. I agree that it is vital to maintain the nation's infrastructure, its roads, its buildings, its water supply and its drains." — [Official Report, 3 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 21.]
If that was right in November 1982, why has it suddenly become wrong in December 1984? If it was right in 1981 for the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), then a Treasury Minister, to argue that there should be no control over local authorities' expenditure of their own capital receipts, why is it right now for him as Chancellor to argue that there should be increasing turning of the screw, leading, presumably, to total control of local authorities' use of their capital receipts?
What has changed in the economy since the right hon. Gentleman changed his position as a Minister? There has not been any improvement, certainly not in housing and certainly not in the building and construction industry. What has changed is simply that an election has come and gone and that the commitments given at that time have been abandoned, just as the commitment to owner-occupiers for grants to improve their premises has been abandoned. Apparently, following yesterday's statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment, there is no longer any commitment either to young people who cannot afford to buy a house to be housed by the local councils. That commitment, too, has been ditched by the Government.
Since the Secretary of State said that people should look to the private market, can he explain the press notice from his Department today, which points out that not only is building falling in the public sector under his policies but that it is falling in the private sector as well? How do the Government expect young unemployed people to buy a house? How do they expect young people in the black and ethnic communities, trapped in appalling conditions and also unemployed, to buy houses? How can elderly and disabled people, living in often crumbling, inadequate, damp and cold accommodation, buy their way out of such situations?
What are the economics behind the Secretary of State's statement yesterday? For that matter, what social policy lies behind it? Do not the Government realise that everyday existence for millions of people in appalling and inadequate housing is abysmal? Do they not recognise the long-term damage to people's health of bad housing conditions? Do they not realise that every child living in overcrowded accommodation, short of space, peace and


quiet, and the ability properly to communicate with his or her parents, is a child who will probably be damaged for life? Is there no feeling among Ministers about all that?
How incredibly stupid to argue that allowing the housing stock, the urban environment, the infrastructure and educational facilities in Britain to deteriorate is sound economics. Do not the Government recognise the effects of all that on the British people? The answer can only be no.
In pursuance of a perverse and failed economic policy, this crass and stupid Administration are imposing appalling sacrifices on the people of Britain through their housing policies. Frankly, it is not enough for Conservative Back Benchers to shoot the messenger as they did yesterday. This is the time to force a change, if they really want one. If Conservative Members believe what they said yesterday, if they are concerned about local democracy, employment, the building and construction industry and the infrastructure of Britain—if, above all, they are concerned about people—they will join us in the lobbies tonight.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): To listen to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) one would think that somehow history had begun in 1979. He chided the Government with falling expenditure on new housing starts. He seems to have forgotten that when the Labour party was in government there was a cut in capital expenditure on housing of 45 per cent. That has to be compared with a figure of half that size under this Government.
If the argument today is about the treatment of capital receipts, my hon. Friends might well bear in mind that if the Labour party had been in office, with its well known opposition to the sale of council houses, there would have been no capital reciepts. Therefore, the only way that that party would have been able to sustain a capital investment programme in housing would have been to have either higher borrowing or higher taxation.
For the hon. Gentleman to chide the Government on the subject of home improvement grants is beyond belief. As he will know, in the peak year— it was a short-term major boost to home improvements—the Government spent no less than £900 million. That is 10 times the amount spent by the Labour Government when they left office.
The debate today goes to the heart of the Government's economic strategy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that the Labour party recognises that. The public expenditure plans for next year were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his autumn statement on 12 November. That statement was approved by the House on 6 December. I shall remind the House of the terms of the motion. It stated that the House
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on keeping the public expenditure planning total for 1985–86 within the figure published in the 1984 Public Expenditure White Paper." —[Official Report, 6 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 519.]
The motion was approved by a majority of 145. We have not cut the total of public expenditure for 1985–86. We stuck to the figure of £132 billion for 1985–86 that we announced a year earlier. We have kept on course. Now we have to deliver that figure, which brings me to the decisions that I announced yesterday.
I repeat that our plans for local authority capital spending remain exactly as provided in the autumn statement and as approved by the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Local authorities have in their possession capital receipts. They can spend them on housing or whatever, without borrowing more money and without raising extra taxation. For the life of me, I cannot see the economic objection to that. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the objection is?

Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of that argument. I shall deal with it in some detail.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I make no complaint about the fact that the House was extremely rough with me yesterday, but I hope that hon. Members will listen to my argument today. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.

Mr. Jenkin: The truth is that during the past two years local authorities in England and Wales have been spending collectively well above the Government's cash limits for each year. In 1983–84 the overspend in England was £368 million. For the present year it could be more than £500 million, even after our request for restraint.
Councils are able to exceed the national cash limit because they are free to spend part of the receipts from the sale of council houses and other assets on top of their allocations. Because of the undoubted success of the right-to-buy policy, the total amount of unspent capital receipts has now grown so large—it is £5 billion or more—that if councils were to spend as much of that as they are allowed to spend under the present rules, there would be another large national overspend in 1985–86. It could amount to £1 billion or more. That would be a direct claim on the contingency reserve. [Laughter.] It would add to the public sector borrowing requirement and obviously it would affect interest rates. [Interruption.] I shall answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in a minute. The House wants to hear the argument. That is why I stress that the issue goes to the heart of the Government's economic strategy. I emphasise that we are not merely talking of tens or twenties of millions of pounds but of £1 billion or more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham asked quite properly why that affects the public sector borrowing requirement. When a council sells a house, for example, for £10,000, that money, if it is not spent in the year in which it is received, will be used to reduce the council's borrowing or it will be lent. In either case it reduces the council's net borrowing. That reduction in borrowing reduces the total PSBR in the year in which that £10,000 is received. Those reductions have already been taken into account each year in the public expenditure White Paper figures.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall finish my point before I give way. If, in a later year, the council decides to spend that £10,000, it will have to borrow back the money to finance the expenditure. [Laughter.] It will.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Dr. Cunningham.

Dr. Cunningham: If all this kindergarten economics is true now, why was it not true in 1981 when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the Government were making the PSBR and the money supply the biggest test of economic and political virility? If it was not true then, what has changed?

Mr. Jenkin: It was true then.

Dr. Cunningham: It was not.

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, it was. Of course it was. The hon. Gentleman has made exactly my point. When the receipts were taken in and not spent, they went to reduce the claim on the PSBR. [Interruption.] Of course they did.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman has a strange memory. In 1981 there were no central Government-imposed controls on the expenditure of receipts by local councils.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall explain in a moment — Unterruption.] . The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 has always contained such a power. I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman perfectly fairly asked why the figure was not taken into account. The answer is that it was. The figures go into the public expenditure total, net after receipt. Therefore, in the year in which the receipt was taken and not spent, it was taken into account. Therefore, if it is not treated as an addition to public sector borrowing when it is spent, it is being accounted for twice.

Mr. Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the leading article in today's Financial Times, that newspaper considers his argument in some detail and concludes that it is a purely statistical consideration with no relevance in the real world?

Mr. Jenkin: The writer of that leading article, which I have read, is not responsible for making the figures add up at the end of the day. [Laughter.] That is the responsibility that falls on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. It is the Secretary of State's decision whether or not he will give way.

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: However much Labour Members shout, the simple truth remains that if a receipt is taken in and not spent, it either reduces borrowing or is lent, and that reduces the PSBR. If, subsequently, it comes back from borrowing and is spent, that increases the PSBR. There is no denying that logic. Capital spending by local authorities—

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way. Mr. Speaker, you have reminded the House that this is a short debate and that many hon. Members wish to speak. I do not wish to take too much time.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: If my right hon. Friend could leave this curious academic and statistical debate for a moment—some of us wish to help him and do not wish to vote with the Opposition—could he at

least, in the real world, give some assurances to local authorities that are in great difficulty that he will abandon from time to time those irrational arguments and give authorities some latitude in capital expenditure? That would help us a little.

Mr. Jenkin: I must say, with the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, that they are not academic arguments. They are real arguments that affect the management of the economy.
The 1980 Act always recognised, for this reason, that there had to be some regulation of the pace at which local authorities spend their accumulated receipts. The Act gave an order-making power to regulate the pace, and that is one purpose of the system of prescribed proportions. In previous years, we have used the power by order to slow the rate at which receipts could be spent by reducing the prescribed proportion. It is because of overspending during the past two years, and because of the threat of a big overspend next year, that we must reduce the proportion again. It will give us a much better chance to keep total spending within the cash limit without having to resort to disruptive and unfair measures later in the year.
To come to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), that must be set alongside the increased end-year flexibility that I announced yesterday and that I am sure is welcomed by local authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend will also have noted that we have made provision for an extra £100 million to give a little extra allocation to those authorities which loyally complied with my request last year.
May I stress another point on which there has been much misunderstanding. The receipts are and will remain the property of local authorities. They can spend them in future years, but the Government must ensure that the pace at which they are spent is compatible with the Government's spending plans, which the House approved on 6 December. It is essential to stick to planned expenditure and to the economic strategy. We need financial discipline to maintain the economic growth that we are achieving.
I should quote something to the House:
An essential element of the Government's strategy will be a continuing and substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector. It is also essential to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement in order to create monetary conditions which will encourage investment and support sustained growth and the control of inflation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It sounds like the Chancellor.

Mr. Jenkin: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, nor was it me, although I agree with it. It was from a letter—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, every time the Secretary of State for the Environment falters, to give him a kick?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and this simply takes up time.

Mr. Jenkin: Opposition Members will probably recognise those words from a letter written by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, eight years ago this month,


when he had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund. He knew that those measures were right, the Cabinet of which he was a member knew that those measures were right, and the hon. Member for Copeland, who was a member of that Government, knew that the measures were right. The trouble with the Labour party is that it could not stick to its guns. The difference with this Government is that not only do we know that the policies are right, we stick to them.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: I have given way many times already.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) must realise that the Secretary of State is not giving way. He knows the rules perfectly well.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me whether it is the tradition of the House that when an hon. Member mentions another hon. Member and specifically challenges him, and the latter wishes to intervene, the Minister or the hon. Member who said that should give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows the conventions. I thought that the Secretary of State was referring to another right hon. Member — [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] If, nevertheless, the Secretary of State does not give way, that is entirely a matter for him.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Copeland asked me several questions about housing, and he made some mistakes. I should make it clear that our priority in housing —there has never been a secret about this—is to enable more people to achieve what they really wish, and that is to own their homes. Since May 1979, more than 600,000 local authority homes in England have been sold to their tenants; 650,000 new houses have been built by private builders. Owner-occupation in England is now more than 63 per cent. and rising. Last year, 167,000 private sector houses were started, which is more than in any year of the Labour Government. Of course —the hon. Gentleman got this wrong—the Government agree that the public sector must continue to provide housing for those who cannot afford to buy or who have special needs.

Dr. Cunningham: That is not what the Minister said yesterday.

Mr. Jenkin: I say that today, and although the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me yesterday, that is now on the record.
The public sector housing programme for 1985–86 will be no less than £3,055 million. We need a better directed

use of those public sector resources. The more radical authorities are joining in partnerships with the private sector to harness its resources to the task of improving housing conditions. Massive increases in the municipal solution are not the answer.
Yet the Government are still investing large sums. Total local authority capital spending in England next year will be more than £4 billion. Total United Kingdom public sector construction expenditure will be more than £10 billion. Total public sector capital expenditure will be more than £20 billion. The Labour party never takes into account private investment, which is at a record level. Total capital investment in the economy, public and private, is at its highest— about £55 billion—and in 1985 we expect the total to be even higher, at a new record of nearly £60 billion.
It is because the Government have stuck to their economic strategy that we are now getting this capital investment. If it is to be sustained in construction and elsewhere, we must continue to control public spending and borrowing so as to keep down interest rates and beat inflation. That is why the Government's policy deserves support.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back Benchers, I say again to the House that there is a very long list of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wishing to take part in the debate. I appeal for brief contributions.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Government have succeeded in embroiling themselves deeply with local government, first on the side of revenue and now in the matter of the total of capital expenditure. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who moved the Adjournment, said that the Government had done this in pursuit of their economic policy and that view, rather to my surprise, appeared to be shared by the Secretary of State. In fact, the bitter irony—very bitter not only for many Conservative right hon. and hon. Members—is that they have got where they have got by defiance of both the logic and the spirit of what is the core of their economic policy—the economic policy which they espoused when they came into office in 1979 and which, with this major inconsistency, they have followed since then.
I venture, as one who was into monetarism before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was into long trousers, upon a definition, not in its abusive sense but in its proper sense, of the term "monetarism". It is the proposition that inflation as we have known and suffered from it in the last generation is the consequence of the monetarisation of debt by Government. All parts of that definition are necessary to its truth; for it is only Government that can turn their borrowing into ready spending cash. No one else can do it—no private corporation, no individual, not the most powerful city such as Manchester with its statutory borrowing power or the smallest district council, can monetarise its debts. Only Government can do this.
The logic of the Government's policy, therefore, rests upon control not of the totality of public spending, whether it be central Government or other spending, but the control of the spending, and consequently of the borrowing, of central Government. That is the proposition from which the Government have departed to embroil themselves with


the very institution of local government. If the Government had said to the local authorities, "Thus much and no more shall we pay to you by way of rate support grant; but if you decide, being elected persons and elected bodies, to spend more, then you must take the consequences of the rate that you must raise," their logic would not have been challengeable.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It has not been challenged.

Mr. Powell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
However, there could have been argument about the element of Government expenditure that was involved.
Now the Government come to the local authorities and say that they propose to limit the amount that authorities can borrow. They do not say that they propose to limit the amount that is lent on to local authorities, having been borrowed on Government security. If they said that, they would have an important case, and a case that would deserve support from the Conservative party and the Government. If they had told local authorities, "Thus much and no more shall be lent on to you from the national loans fund, having been borrowed on Government credit; but if you care, on your credit, on the credit of your rates, to go into the market and borrow more—no doubt it may be at a higher rate of interest, and no doubt that will be reflected in the rate—that is your responsibility and that is a power that you have," the theory on which the Government were acting could not have been challenged. A Government who have announced their intention of denationalising the trustee savings movement are in no position to laugh at the notion that arrangements can be made to enable local authorities to borrow otherwise than from the national loans fund.
It is by departing from the central thesis of their economic policy that the Government have not merely embroiled themselves with local government from one end of the country to the other but set themselves at issue with the underlying democratic principle of local government — that is, that as councils raise a revenue upon their responsibility to their ratepayers, therefore central Government will not intervene — otherwise than by statutory control and regulation, by those statutory definitions of policy that belong ultimately to the House— to curb or limit the extent to which in any particular place they decide so to do.
So I exhort the Government to return to the inner logic that should characterise their action, and to control Government expenditure and Government borrowing. If they say that they want to reduce taxation, they will find that that argument will lead them to the same conclusion, for it is upon the Government's own expenditure that the level of taxation for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to ask next spring depends. So even if they take refuge in the argument that their policy is to reduce taxation, they are still destitute of defence for the assault that they have delivered on local government.
I have nearly done, and have only this to say. It may seem strange for a right hon. Member sitting on the Northern Ireland Bench to take time in a debate that concerns Great Britain. I say it is not only not strange but inevitable. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I were returned to say to the House that those whom we represent demand that there be restored to them the same democratic

local government as is enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be an absurdity and a contradiction if we did not today use our voice and our vote against the destruction of the democratic principle of local government in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Sir William Clark: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) gave us an interesting exposition how we might change our public sector borrowing requirement, but, with the greatest respect, I point out that the public sector, no matter whether it be central Government or local authority, is competing against investment in the private sector. Consequently, when the right hon. Gentleman says that if a local authority wants to overspend it can increase the rates, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that many people do not pay rates to their local authority because the rates are paid for them by the DHSS. This has a massive effect on the country's income.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose—

Sir William Clark: No, I shall not give way.
The hysterical reaction of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to this matter is unbelievable. I cannot see what the fuss is about. I point out to my hon. Friends that one of the main planks of our last two election manifestos was an undertaking to control public expenditure, and we are doing so, although many Conservative Members still think that public expenditure in its totality, at 42 per cent. of GNP, is far too high and must come down. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely true. The figures produced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were in the autumn statement, and they are proof positive that the Government have not changed their view. The autumn statement says that, next year, local authorities will spend £30 billion and that the capital expenditure by local authorities on services, including housing, will be £4 billion—there has been no alteration.
The Government have a responsibility to examine overspending. In 1983–84 the local authorities overspent by £368 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that this year's overspend will be about £500 million. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend announced that in 1985–86 local authorities will have to restrict their capital expenditure on services, including housing, to £4 billion.
People talk about reserves, but I do not believe that many of us understand what they are. The are not cash reserves. As my right hon. Friend said, the sale of council houses, land and such assets has produced a reserve of £5 billion in the hands of local authorities. Much of that money, although it is in reserve, has been lent to council tenants to buy their houses.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir William Clark: I shall not give way.
Some local authorities have been giving mortgages to purchase council houses, and in this case those mortgages canot be called in. People believe that the £5 billion is cash in reserve; it is not. Part of the money is in reserve, but not all of it. The bulk has been lent to the local authority to be used in its area or to other local authorities, and they


have used the money. Consequently, if authorities wanted to spend some of those reserves, they would have to call in some of those loans.

Mr. John Fraser: rose—

Sir William Clark: I shall not give way. It would not be a bad idea if the Opposition waited.
If there were a massive calling in of loans to use the money to provide extra housing or other capital projects, the market would be affected. We must remember that, next year, the public sector borrowing requirement may increase. I believe that everyone, including my hon. Friends, would agree that it is high enough at £8·5 billion. Some of my hon. Friends would like more money to be spent on capital projects, and I can understand their point. We must find the money either by borrowing or by taxing, and I do not believe that we shall obtain the money by taxation.

Mr. Charles Irving: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir William Clark: I shall not give way.
Statements have been made about linking these reserves to the amount of capital expenditure. The Housing Act 1980 allows a council to spend up to 50 per cent. of receipts from the sale of assets, apart from the money that the council could generate itself. That percentage was reduced to 40 per cent. and then was reduced again to its present level of 20 per cent. It is incorrect to say that this is a new measure. It has been done since 1980. The same principle applies to the sale of land.
There is no question of taking these capital reserves from local authorities. The Government are saying merely that the pace at which those reserves are spent is to be restricted so that the public sector demands on the market are contained within the £8·5 billion limit. I am sure that all my hon. Friends would like increased capital expenditure, but I certainly would not like more capital expenditure at the expense of more taxation or borrowing.
I agree that public sector starts in house building have decreased. Last year, 167,400 houses were built by the private sector—a 10—year record. During the first nine months of 1984, construction industry output increased in real terms by 4·7 per cent. compared with 1983. In 1983, capital expenditure by the private and public sectors amounted to £45·5 billion in 1980 terms. That is not a bad record.
The Opposition talk sneeringly about home improvement grants, but they have little room to criticise this Government. In 1983–84, the Government spent £770 million of taxpayers' money on those grants.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Sir William Clark: During the last year of the term of the previous Labour Government, only £98 million was spent on those grants. False excitement has been generated by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As he rightly pointed out, on 12 November the House agreed the autumn statement—no doubt the Opposition did not agree—and I should have thought that every hon. Member would agree that the public sector borrowing requirement should not be exceeded. We must support the Government in this issue. I remind those hon. Members who want to increase the

public sector borrowing requirement that the national debt is costing the taxpayer £16·5 billion a year in interest alone. It would be folly to increase that debt.
The Government are to be commended on sticking religiously to their economic strategy, despite the wishes of vested interests, the Opposition, and so on. It is only because we have not been deflected from our purpose that we are now enjoying a rate of inflation which is the lowest for many years.

Mr. Eric Heffer: I wish to declare an interest. I believe that only three hon. Members are former construction workers—myself, as a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, my hon. Friend the member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton), who is sponsored by the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), who is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I have an interest in this subject from the angle of the construction workers and those who, like myself, when first married, lived for seven years in two rooms and therefore understand exactly what it means to be on a housing list and to live in overcrowded conditions without a proper home of one's own. That is why I was angry when I listened to the Government's statement yesterday.
To some extent I feel sorry for the Secretary of State because I do not think that he is the villain of the piece. I believe that the villain of the piece is the right hon. Gentleman who has just walked out of the Chamber—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and who is backed by the Prime Minister. The Treasury, backed by the Prime Minister, is responsible for what the Government are doing today. I remember that the Secretary of State was asked to fight his corner—to fight for the industry. That call came not just from Opposition Members; it came clearly also from Conservative Members.
I give the Secretary of State his due. We were told that £600 million was likely to be cut from the housing budget. He undoubtedly put up a fight inside the Cabinet. We were all delighted—although not completely, because we did not want to see any cuts; we would .have liked to see further investment in the construction industry —. when he said that there was to be a reduction of only £75 million. The National Builder this month says:
The Autumn Statement was better than at first feared.
The truth is, as one of my hon. Friends said yesterday, the Treasury has now got its revenge. I am not always in agreement with The Guardian but it said, rightly, I think:
In yesterday's package the Treasury seized hack £588 million in an accounting trick which is likely to deceive all but the closest observers.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Conservative chairman of the Association of District Councils who, following the announcement, said:
In the Autumn round of public expenditure decisions, the DOE claimed that £600 million of spending cuts had been avoided. Today's announcement gives that claim a hollow ring.
That is right. The Government—to use an Orwellian phrase—are using "doublethink" and "newspeak". In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 3 November 1982, the Prime Minister answered my right hon. Friend the


Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) — before the general election of course, that is the important point—and said:
We need more capital spending by local government and in the public sector generally."— [Official Report, 3 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 21.]
In a letter to Sir Jack Smart, then a prominent figure on the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—before the general election, of course—the Prime Minister said:
Local authorities have been enabled, and indeed encouraged, to increase their capital expenditure by using capital receipts to supplement their capital allocation.
We are seeing the opposite of that policy being carried out today.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend will recall that when Liverpool city council was negotiating with the Secretary of State he told the council that although the Prime Minister was opposed to the spending of capital receipts, he was not. It was on that basis that Liverpool eventually found a solution to its problem. Does my hon. Friend see the announcement as a breach of faith with Liverpool?

Mr. Heffer: I do. I agree with my hon. Friend. It underlines the next point that I was going to make. Mr. George Smith, the president of the Institute of Housing, has said that local authorities had been
the victims of a monstrous confidence trick.
That is the position in which we are today.
I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends will rightly demand the Secretary of State's resignation. I do not care whether he resigns or not, and I will tell the House why. If he resigned, leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, we might have someone even worse. Just imagine that. With their majority, we might have someone even worse than we have now. I can see that happening.
It is interesting to read the exchanges that took place in the House yesterday afternoon. There were Conservative Members who regarded the policy as "voodoo economics". Only two Conservative Members defended their Front Bench. Conservative Members must do what many Labour Members did when our Government made drastic cuts in housing expenditure. We were prepared to get up and say that that was wrong. Conservative Members must not just say that the policy is wrong; they must show that it is by their vote. If they do not want to vote with the Opposition, they do not have to vote with the Government. It is the only way in which the Government will take notice of what is happening.
The Secretary of State said that the announcement goes to the heart of the Government's policy. He is right. I draw attention to what the Minister for Housing and Construction said to the Building Employers Confederation in London recently. I have a high personal regard for him, but politically I feel differently. Before he spoke, Mr. Millwood, the national president, said:
In the last decade total construction output had fallen by around one-fifth while output of new work had dropped by no less than one-third. The effect on building employment of that drastic reduction in workload made even more sombre reading.
The Minister responded to that, and I want the House to listen carefully to what he said because it is at the heart of the Government's philosophy. It is reported in this month's National Builder that he said:

Employment creation is not in itself enough to justify public spending on construction, nor for that matter on anything else.
That is at the heart of the Government's argument. They are not interested in investment in the construction industry, as a Conservative Member said yesterday, to create homes and employment for the people. When some of us have said that the Government have used unemployment as a weapon, we have been told that that is exaggeration, but that is a clear statement by the Minister, and it is the essence of the Government's position.
I speak as a construction worker. There are 400,000 of my people—construction workers—out of work. Many of them are highly skilled. Many of them have been out of work for well over a year and in some cases two and three years. Thousands of young working couples wanting a home are on a waiting list. They are living in appalling and overcrowded conditions. Many of them have no hope of having a home for five or six years or even longer. Many are living in homes that need improvements and repairs. The Government have affected all those people. The Government must be prepared to change their policy. If not, the right hon. Gentleman should cease to be Secretary of State and the Government should go out of office to give those of us who want investment in the construction industry the opportunity to get our people back to work.

5 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: It is a pleasure for me to find myself once again in full agreement with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I, like him, have been a monetarist for many years—indeed, ever since I was assistant to Professor Hayek, who I think is well regarded by my colleagues on the Government Front Bench. I have always made a distinction, as the right hon. Gentleman did when a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the monetarist policy that the Conservative Government carried on, between good and bad monetarism. That is a distinction that sometimes my right hon. Friends and the Secretary of State for the Environment have failed to make. The argument that he advanced today is bad monetarism and irrational economic nonsense. It should be dismissed for the reasons outlined by the right hon. Member for South Down, which I warmly support.
The right hon. member for South Down referred to a factor which has been central to the policy of both Conservative and Labour Governments for many years. As Professor Hayek wrote in his great work, "The Road to Serfdom", we cannot have real democracy without effective and real local government. That is what the debate is all about. Many of us on the Conservative Benches have been worried for a long time about the growing divergence between central Government and local authorities which, for generation after generation, have worked together in partnership. They have certainly not worked always in absolute agreement, but there has been an understanding of each other's points of view and problems. That is why we have been so disturbed by the nature and manner of the statement that was made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
My right hon. Friend's statement appeared irrational, and it can be considered erratic in the context of the request made by the Government—it was made in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and in the


speeches of other Ministers—to the local authorities to quicken and increase capital expenditure. What could be more irrational than to urge local authorities in January to increase capital expenditure by March? It is impossible for local authorities, companies, Governments or any other organisations to plan capital expenditure, except on a rational long-term basis against the background of some consistency of policy from the Government.
The money is in the hands of the local authorities in the sense that I regard my money to be in my own hands when I sell my house and lend the money to a bank at a high rate of interest, happily, thanks to the Government. Having done so, I do not consider it wrong to say, "I want the money back because I want to build a new house." The money is available, so that is M1.
Secondly, we have the men. There is no question of too much pressure being placed on the labour force. We have Ml, the money, and M2, the men. Thirdly, we have M3, the materials. I suggest that that is a much more rational concept of economics than the motorway madness, as I used to call it, of M1, M2 and M3 statistics.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say—I think that I understood him aright although it was rather noisy at the time—about bringing orders before the House and providing the opportunity for debate. Of course, we want to be helpful to my right hon. Friend. I do not want a vote on the Adjournment of the House to hold up all the other important discussions that are to take place this evening. I do not think that I can vote on that Question this evening, but I am prepared to abstain. However, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I want to leave entirely open the attitude that we shall take to the orders that my right hon. Friend lays before the House. Much will depend on his ability to give the assurance for which I asked—that the Government will consider the problems of the inner cities, some of which are great and desperate, in a broad way. In other words, between now and the laying of the orders, I hope that clear undertakings will be given to local authorities that my right hon. Friend's use of "flexible" means that if their needs can be proved they will be met, because of need, not loyalty .

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The announcement that I made yesterday had nothing to do with the substantial sums that the Government have earmarked for the urban programme. Those sums will not be affected by the statement, and the Government will continue to make them available. there will be an increasing concentration on the partnership and programme areas. In that respect, I can go quite a long way to meet my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful for that. I have no doubt that that issue can be clarified further in subsequent discussions with local authorities before the orders are laid. Many of us are concerned that the necessary dialogue between the Government and local authority associations is not taking place. If there is further clarification on the issue to which my right hon. Friend referred, and an indication that where a case can be made a local authority will be allowed to use in a proper way more of its capital receipts, it may not be necessary to vote against the orders.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to be called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after

the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), because I think that I can speak with some authority on behalf of the inner city areas he referred to. Only 2·6 per cent. of the housing in my constituency is owner-occupied, and nowhere in Britain is there a constituency with a lower percentage. There are only four areas in Britain where the council sector is a larger proportion than in my constituency. It is over 80 per cent. in Southwark and Bermondsey. It seems to my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members, that we are debating two main issues, one being economic and one social.
Perhaps the best way to encapsulate what has been said so far is to say that the prophecy made in the autumn of 1983 by the president of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers has been fulfilled. The president warned that Treasury pressure would undermine the Government's housing policies. We have now arrived at a position at which the only available economic arguments seem also not to carry weight. If the best that the Government can do is to put up their Back Bench chairman of the finance committee to advance arguments that are spurious and points that are misleading, they had better change some of the officers who advise the Conservative party on economic affairs.
The arguments about the balance of expenditure between central Government and local government make it necessary first to remember that central Government have been by far the worse culprit. The local authorities have not been overspending considerably in excess of targets but that sort of spending has been carried on from Whitehall. It is only since the Government came to power in 1979 that we have had controls on local authority capital expenditure. We have not had the present system under any other Government, and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) was wrong to intimate otherwise. First there was 50 per cent. control, then it was 40 per cent. and now we are told it is 20 per cent.

Dr. Keith Hampson: rose—

Mr. Hughes: How do the Government answer three questions that arise from the debate and which have been asked by various organisations and writers? First, how do they answer the question that is put in today's edition of the Financial Times? When the local authorities are financing from capital receipts, they are not financing from borrowing because the money is available to them and is not locked away elsewhere. How does that financing undermine the Government's economic strategy? That strategy does not require the moneys to be drawn from another source. They are present and available to local authorities and they are not, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested, being lent out by local authorities to their tenants to finance mortgages. Most of the mortgages that are made available under the right-to-buy scheme are from building societies, not local councils.

Dr. Hampson: My intervention is almost redundant but I think that the hon. Gentleman will wish to put the record straight. The present system, which stems from 1980 legislation, is much freer and flexible than its predecessor. Until the 1980 legislation, there had been project controls by individual central Government Departments on everything spent by local authorities. That


system was reformed and the new flexibility allowed authorities to move their capital receipts between various sectors.

Mr. Hughes: In one respect, some flexibility was introduced between the different blocks of spending, but there was another element that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) criticised so validly — the power of central Government to intervene in an unparalleled way in 1980, under the 1980 Act — in theory, and, since then, increasingly in practice—in the moneys, expenditure patterns and democratically made decisions of local authorities up and down the country.
I should like to ask the Minister the second question. Is it or is it not the view of the Treasury and its colleagues in other Departments that money spent on house building and home repair is a very good investment, in simple economic, financial and accounting terms as well as everything else? This figure is one of the most authoritative that I have recently seen. Is it not right that for every £100 million invested in construction, one saves about £75 million in taxation and social security benefits by taking people out of the dole queue and giving people the opportunity to live in a home of their own? If that is not right, how is it that there are criticisms from people who work in the industry—for example, only a couple of weeks ago from the president of the Building Employers Confederation—that at the moment 400,000 construction workers are being paid £600 million by the Government this year in dole money for doing nothing while the housing stock is sliding into decay and disrepair?
I have a last question for the Government. When the Secretary of State answered a question of mine on his trailer statement on the subject in July, he referred to the moneys that the Government would save by the announcement. He said that the percentage had been reduced
so that we would have a larger slice to reallocate to those authorities which did not have the same opportunities for sales as others.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded:
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give the Government some credit for that."—[Official Report, 18 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 336–37.]
I should like to pursue the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. Does the Secretary of State's reply mean that authorities such as mine, which have a large amount of public sector housing stock, most of which are flats, most of which are in high-rise blocks and therefore most of which will not be and have not been bought, will be the beneficiaries of the moneys that the Government are now saving? Or was what I was told in July a lie, because the whole exercise was designed simply to save central Government funds and put the central accounts in what the Government regard as some sort of order? If this is getting the Government off the backs of the people, which appeared to be the motto upon which the Government went to the people and secured a reduction in their vote last year, it is a funny sort of non-interference.
The social arguments are no less valid than the economic ones. How is it possible to justify the halving in London of the provision of public housing investment since the Government came to office? I accept that my borough is unusual because it has the largest public housing sector stock in London. In 1979–80, it received

£54,068 million in Government support, which was reduced last year to £31 million, and will be reduced again. How is that justifiable when there is such a substantial need and all the figures prove that? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are rightly saying that there is mismanagement. Of course there is, and I am the first to criticise it. However, that does not justify the Government not putting money into housing when there is still a substantial need. If the Government made a substantial effort it would have immediate results in increasing employment and providing housing for our people.
The programme that we put to the electorate last year was similar in one respect to that of some other opposition parties, in that we said that what was needed was a substantial increase in public sector borrowing to make our country's infrastructure such that we would be allowed to prosper and not decline. Sewers, housing, roads and buildings are our national assets. It is ludicrous for the Government to say that they are unworthy of investment, just as it is appalling for them to preside over their perpetual decline.
One or two weeks ago the Minister for Housing and Construction used a phrase that may remain for a long time in hon. Members' memories. He said that the Government's policies in a certain area were designed to introduce into our national life the magic of the market place. This policy is the monetarism of the madhouse. It is economically, politically and socially mad. I accept that it is not even true to the Government's declared policy and philosophy and it certainly is not true to what the Government declared was their commitment to the people. If they do not believe me, I should like to tell the Government this. Compared with all the housing programmes and housing investment of all our partners in western Europe, it is in this country that the people are most miserably housed and where the smallest proportion of gross national product is spent on housing. I obtained the figures on that from Vol. 64 of Hansard. This country should therefore start to correct and not ignore the appalling disrepair and mismanagement of our assets, for which the Government and their predecessors in 1979 have been responsible.
We believe that improving the nation's housing stock would not only make a positive contribution to the well-being of the United Kingdom but create a better way of life for all sectors of our community. If the Government refuse to respond today, I hope that they will think again over Christmas and decide that they should alter their course, with a resolution not to be so stupid in the new year.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkstone and Hythe): The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke of the Government's objective of getting off the backs of the people. His thinking and that of many of his hon. Friends and other Opposition Members is bedevilled by the fact that he confuses the people with local authorities. The Government's objective is indeed to get off the backs of the people, by trying to keep rates, taxes and interest rates as low as possible. It is sometimes necessary to intervene in the way in which local authorities conduct their affairs to achieve those objectives.
Having listened to what has been said by Opposition Members, one might suppose that this was the first occasion on which central Government have sought to intervene in this way to control the expenditure of local authorities.


That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to remind the House about the events of 1976. We have the benefit of the account that has been given to us by Lord Barnett, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We can obtain the flavour of those events, particularly through the description of Cabinet meetings, in which the exchanges culminated in bitter controversy over the issue of whether the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) would sell his own grandmother or ask Lord Barnett to do that work for him. However, that is a reminder of the fact that all Governments have recognised that it is an important and central part of their responsibilities to control public spending as a whole, and that includes the spending of local authorities.
It is in the context of the Government's overall economic policy that one has to examine and assess the proposals before the House. It is predictable that Opposition Members should seek to make political capital out of the fact that control of public spending often means that it is necessary to postpone desirable projects, but, given the failure of Opposition Members when they were in government to achieve so many desirable objectives that they themselves set, their extravagant language on the matter will be heavily discounted by anyone who does not share their partisan point of view.
We have to see how the proposals before us fit in with the Government's overall economic policy. That is why I am somewhat puzzled by the criticisms advanced by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially as so many of them supported the Government in the Division after the debate on the autumn statement less than a fortnight ago. The proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday were foreshadowed in the autumn statement and form a central part of the strategy at the heart of that statement. That must be taken fully into account in any assessment of the proposals.

Mr. Irving: I am most interested in my hon. and learned Friend's speech and am listening carefully to every word of it, but I do not quite understand what he is talking about. I do not recall there being anything about this in the autumn statement — unless it was in the same jingle-jangle language as the rate support grant proposals, so that people could not understand it. Local authorities were told previously that the money that they contributed to the pool would be at their disposal. The Secretary of State has repeated today that that money will be "available" to local authorities—but they will not be able to spend it. Why?

Mr. Howard: I shall tell my hon. Friend why. The matter is dealt with in paragraph 2.29 of the autumn statement. If local authorities spend an unlimited amount of money, less money will be available for the private sector— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Other things being equal, that means that interest rates will be higher than they otherwise would be. That remains the case whether the money being spent by local authorities is borrowed or is derived from the proceeds of selling council houses or other assets. In any event, the money is being spent, and it is thus not available to be borrowed by the private sector. That is why interest rates would be higher than would otherwise be the case. Local authority treasurers do not sleep with that money under their mattresses. It is either used to diminish existing borrowing or put on deposit and is available to be borrowed by the private sector. If that source of finance is removed, less money will be available to be borrowed and interest rates will be higher.

Mr. Rippon: Paragraph 2.29 of the autumn statement says:
The outlook for local authority capital spending in 1984–85 is uncertain. Early returns suggested a large overspend on cash limits in England and Wales, and local authorities were asked to restrain spending, and to generate extra receipts. Net provision for Great Britain in 1985–86 is about £3·1 billion. This is a reduction from Cmnd. 9143 of about £600 million, to take account of the 1983–84 overspend and of increased receipts"—
to which I would add, which, to the best of our knowledge and belief, they will be allowed to spend.

Mr. Howard: The figure for Great Britain is indeed £3·1 billion. The figure given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday represents the proportion for England. There is a reduction from Cmnd. 9143 of the amount stated, and it certainly takes account of the previous year's overspend and increased receipts.

Dr. Hampson: There are a couple of distortions that my hon. and learned Friend seems not to have considered. No one is arguing for unlimited freedom to spend capital assets, but we all know that local authorities borrow against capital assets. Moreover, as they are gaining interest on them, that revenue can be and is spent on current account. The Government constantly argue that current account spending is running away and should be controlled while capital spending should be increased, but the current proposals positively encourage the reverse.

Mr. Howard: That is one of the matters to be taken into account. If the money were spent in the year under discussion, less would be available for future years and pressure of interest rates on local authority current account payments would be that much heavier and more difficult in the future.
I hope that the whole House will welcome the objective of keeping interest rates as low as possible in the cause of job preservation and creation. In all our constituencies there are many businesses on the cusp of profitability. If interest rates were raised, they might well cease to operate or have to make workers redundant. That would increase unemployment. There are also businesses contemplating new projects and people contemplating starting new businesses. Interest rates are a critical component in the costs that those people have to take into account in making their decisions.
It is all very well for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and others to share the general approbation of the attempt to reduce interest rates, but it is one thing to say that that is a good thing and quite another to will the means for that end. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot permit himself the luxury of that mental dichotomy between the means and the end. He has to make the connection between the two, and that connection is embodied in the autumn statement that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends supported less than a fortnight ago. The proposals now before us represent a central part of the strategy embodied in that statement. If one wants lower interest rates, one must will the means and accept the sometimes uncomfortable consequences of so doing.

Mr. Straw: Even within the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the money market as a closed system in which crowding out pushes up interest rates, does he not realise that, although holding cash balances in local authorities may reduce interest rates, the reduction in orders and the increased borrowing by companies that this


causes will increase interest rates? If the money were transferred from local authority balances to construction company balances, the result would be more construction, more people back at work and an increase in company liquidity without any overall increase in interest rates.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman leaves out of account the overriding importance of encouraging at every turn the wealth-creating private sector of the economy. That is best achieved by pursuing policies that will keep interest rates as low as possible.
I stood for election 18 months ago on a manifesto containing the following words:
We shall maintain firm control of public spending and borrowing. If Government borrows too much, interest rates rise, and so do mortgage payments. Less spending by Government leaves more room to reduce taxes on families and businesses.
I am proud to have been elected to the House on that manifesto, and I adhere to its commitments. That is why I supported the Government in the Division after the debate on the autumn statement and that is why I shall support the Government today.

Mr. David Winnick: While the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was speaking, one of my hon. Friends suggested to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to become the new Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. John Fraser: No—just Creep of the Year.

Mr. Winnick: If that was indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman's purpose, I must say that I doubt whether he would have any more success at the Dispatch Box than the present Secretary of State.
We should be grateful to the Secretary of State for the Environment for one thing only — turning the spotlight on the present appalling housing situation. I had often wondered how long it would be before the media and others outside the House turned their attention to the situation in the building industry and the difficulties faced by so many people as a result of the housing shortage.
Ministers often refer — the Secretary of State did so today — to what happened under the Labour Government. They try to use that as an excuse for what is happening at present. It is true that there was a decline in public sector house building under the Labour Government — I would not wish to deny the obvious, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made the same point — but it is interesting to note that in 1978, after that decline had taken place, there were 107,000 housing starts in the public sector. By 1981, under the present Government, the figure was just 37,000. The estimated number of public sector housing starts in 1984 is 40,000. There is no comparison between what happened under the Labour Government — even bearing in mind the decline that took place between 1976 and the time the Labour Government left office — and what has occurred under the present Government.
It is possible that, as a result of yesterday's statement, the number of public sector starts in 1985 will be 36,000, or less. It is interesting to note, too, that there will be fewer starts in the private sector this year than in 1978.
So far, I have dealt with the national position. In Walsall borough no contracts have been entered into for

new council house building since 1979. As a result, an increasing number of people there have to wait to be rehoused. In many cases, tenants have to wait for many years before any improvements are made to their pre-war council dwellings.
Nationally the position is appalling. The House should be very concerned about the cuts that are to be made in addition to all the previous cuts. In England, last year, it is estimated that 78,000 households were accepted by local authorities as being homeless. In London, more than 2,000 homeless families were using bed-and-breakfast hotels as temporary accommodation last summer. The cost of such temporary accommodation in London alone is estimated at £12 million a year.

Mr. Tony Marlow: What about shortholds?

Mr. Winnick: Instead of shouting from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) should bear the facts in mind. That money would pay off the loan charges of 3,000 rented homes costing £30,000 each.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way, because of time. There are other categories of people about whom we should be deeply concerned. There is the plight of the young, young marrieds. If young couples cannot obtain a mortgage and if the local authority is unable to rehouse them, they will probably not have adequate accommodation. There may be nowhere for them to live. That appalling situation is one more reason why a proper housing drive should be undertaken.
There are also families with young children in my constituency and, of course, in many other areas, living in high-rise flats, who wait for years on end to be rehoused in rented houses. It is all very well for Ministers to talk about the number of dwellings sold. Almost without exception, those dwellings have been houses, not high-rise flats.
Many homes remain unfit. I have received some figures from Shelter on the subject. The Minister for Housing and Construction should be deeply concerned about the problem. Nearly a million homes are unfit for human habitation. Nearly a million homes lack one or more basic amenities. Nearly 4 million need substantial repairs. The number of homes needing expensive repairs — repairs that will cost more than £2,500—has risen by over 20 per cent. in five years. The situation, therefore, is extremely serious.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is presenting a most realistic appraisal of the situation. However, he has not mentioned the fact that last year we cleared only 0·1 per cent. of the housing stock. As the houses now being built in the private sector will not last for a thousand years, we are storing up trouble for the future.

Mr. Winnick: I take my hon. Friend's point.
I do not blame the Minister for Housing and Construction. The real culprit is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it was leaked to the press, before the autumn statement was made, that if there was to be a cut of £600 million, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) intended to resign. The story was never denied. It appears that the cut is to amount to over £400 million. The hon. Gentleman should remember the stories that appeared


in the press, which I took to be true. As a housing Minister, he has duties and responsibilities. I certainly do not see how he can carry out his duties after the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State.
Like all my hon. Friends, and many Conservative Members as well, I find it difficult to understand how when so many people are desperately in need of new accommodation or repairs to their homes, nearly 25 per cent. of building workers can be on the dole. What justification can there be for allowing so many people to remain on the dole when they could be building and improving the homes so urgently needed for our people?
We must always bear in mind how much money is paid out in total in unemployment and supplementary benefit to people in the dole queues. How can the Government be serious about trying to reduce unemployment when, as a result of yesterday's statement, so many more building workers will join the dole queue during 1985?
I find it difficult to envisage how historians in future will write about these days. How will they explain the present Government's refusal to allow local authorities to spend their own capital receipts—not borrowed money —on providing the dwellings that are needed, while at the same time the Government are spending overall such large sums on supplementary and unemployment benefit? It is no wonder that, when the Secretary of State made his statement yesterday, hardly any Conservative Members defended the Government's position. At most, two Conservative Members did so, including the hon. Member for Northampton, North.
Conservative Members who refuse today to support what is, in essence, a Treasury diktat to the Secretary of State for the Environment will be not only doing a service to the homeless and to others in acute housing need, but showing that, unlike the Secretary of State, they cannot vote for an economic absurdity. I hope that a sufficient number of Conservative Members will demonstrate their independence as Back Benchers by refusing to support measures that can only harm the country and substantially increase unemployment.

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling an hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency. Local government in Wales might have something to teach English local authorities. Anyone who has been involved in local government for some time must have concluded that the breakneck acceleration in local government spending during the 1960s and 1970s could not have continued indefinitely. Most of the years that I have spent in local government have been punctuated by dire warnings from Ministers in successive Governments. Those warnings started with our being told that the party was over.
I have served on a large county council in Wales and am a member of a Welsh district council. I am surprised to be taking part in a debate on an Opposition motion that criticises the Government for cuts in capital expenditure. If any party has acquired expertise in the use of the knife, it is the Labour party. It has been responsible for much heavier cuts in local government capital expenditure than the present Government.
If there were any Welsh Labour Members present, I should not apologise for reminding them of when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) trekked around housing authorities in Wales boasting of

the Labour Government's intention to expand the capital investment programme. He urged us to spend, spend, spend. He cheerily waved as he told us to go out and try to break the bank. Only a few short weeks later we received the bad news that the bank was broke. We then received the worse news that no houses had been built and that the programme had been scrapped.
In July 1976 the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) announced cuts of £1·012 million, four fifths of which was in capital spending, and which the Treasury admitted cost 150,000 jobs. Further cuts of £800 million in 1977–78 and £1·5 million in 1978–79, about half of which were in capital spending, caused the loss of another 140,000 jobs.
In 1973–74, Welsh capital spending was 42 per cent. of revenue spending but in 1978–79, when Labour was in office, it had been reduced to 18 per cent. of revenue spending. So much for the bleatings of Opposition Members about the need for more capital expenditure. They support policies that produce a level of revenue spending that precludes any increase in capital spending. In Wales, capital spending has increased from £226 million in 1978–79 to £388·5 million—

Mr. Ray Powell: Give the figures in real terms.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was in the council chamber when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney announced his expansion of capital spending. He was the first to welcome that tremendous expansion in housing investment but had to apologise later when the programme was scrapped.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I cannot give way because time is short.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: No. I shall consider a local authority that the hon. Member for Ogmore knows well—

Mr. Powell: Give way, then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Powell: But he has mentioned me.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: The local authority of which the hon. Member for Ogmore was a member for a time increased its capital expenditure—

Mr. Powell: But how many more homeless people are there in Ogmore now?

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I shall answer that question later.
In 1982–83, Ogmore borough council's capital expenditure was £12 million. In 1983–84, it was £17 million— an increase of 40 per cent. I am sure that Opposition Members will say that that is a great thing and that the authority is providing services. However, not one penny of that increase was spent on housing. The Labour party in the local authority which the hon. Member for Ogmore knows so well got its priorities right, like all other Labour-controlled authorities in south Wales, and spent the increase on new council offices and leisure centres. So much for the Labour party's caring about homeless people


in south Wales. The Ogmore council's projected spend for next year is £21 million—a further increase of 24 per cent. Only a fraction of it is to go into housing.
I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have a great deal of sympathy with Conservatives in south Wales. They recognise that we have to live with extravagant and profligate councils that are so heavily Labour-controlled. If I were to tell ratepayers in my constituency that the local authority was prudent and budgeted wisely, they would laugh in my face. They believe the local authority to be profligate.

Mr. Powell: They will be laughing in the hon. Gentleman's face at the next general election.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I did not lose my community council seat and I was not defeated in the borough elections. The hon. Member for Ogmore will remember those elections. Although ratepayers think that local authorities in my area are profligate, if Welsh local authorities had increased their current expenditure last year in line with their English counterparts, they would have spent £66 million more — equivalent to an additional rate burden of 24p in the pound.
As a result of Welsh local authorities' comparatively wise budgeting, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has been able to release resources for a wide range of capital schemes. For 1984–85, Government expenditure plans amount to £84 per head—45 per cent. above the equivalent figure for England. The lesson from Wales to English local authorities is that English authorities have eaten their seed corn and have too often followed high-spending, extreme and extravagant Socialist priorities. I welcome the fact that, as a result of overall restraint by Welsh local authorities on public expenditure, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to announce a more flexible and generous capital settlement this year. I also welcome what, for me, is one of the most important aspects of the English and Welsh proposals—the fact that those proposals build much more flexibility into the capital control system.
The Labour Government and the present Government have overspent and underspent. As a result they have had to take midstream corrective measures. Both Governments have witnessed resources being wasted through under-spending — there was an £85 million underspend in housing in the two years 1981–83 — and both Governments have had to act because overspending was likely to send the economy out of control.
The advantage of the present proposals is that they afford longer lead times for the planning of capital expenditure by local authorities; a higher proportion of underspend can now be carried forward into the following year; and a modest amount of overspending will not upset the programme. This is important because there are bound to be occasions when vital and unforeseen projects will have to be carried out when the local authority will find that it has already committed its total capital allocation. If the need for mid-term intervention can be eliminated, that will be a great step forward. It will avoid the need for local authorities to commit the bulk of their capital allocation as early as possible in the financial year, thereby avoiding any possibility of restraints midstream. That is what presently happens.
My own local authority, in the first three months of the year, contractually committed £ll million out of its total capital allocation of £17 million. That produces a distorted picture of the pattern of capital spending.
It has been argued that the reduction in the prescribed proportion of capital receipts in England to 20 per cent. will affect the number of council house sales, but Wales has lived with a figure of 25 per cent. for a long time. That is now to be reduced to 15 per cent., but Wales has sold a larger proportion of its housing stock than England.
The Labour party's record on capital housing in Wales is dismal. The protestations of Labour Members about the reduction in the prescribed proportion is hypocritical, because as my right hon. Friend said, if they had their way there would be no capital receipts. If only for those two reasons, I intend to support the Government tonight.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to have this opportunity of following the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles), if only to apologise to the people of Wales for the fact that some Welsh Conservative Members, who are so totally uncritical of what the Government have proposed, are capable of making crawling, uncritical speeches such as the one we have just heard. We did not hear a word from the hon. Gentleman about the rights of Welsh local authorities to determine what to do with their resources. I wonder what his friends on the councils that he used to mix with will think about that.
The hon. Gentleman merely looked backwards to what happened in the 1970s. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now, and two wrongs do not make a right. He criticised profligate councils in his own area for what they have done in the past and more recently, but the answer should remain in the hands of the local electorate who have the right to vote such authorities in or out of office. That is what democracy is about. It is no use the hon. Gentleman pouring out his venom towards those councils simply because the Conservative party failed to take control of the local authority in his area.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Moô): rose—

Mr. Wigley: I shall not give way, just as the hon. Member for Bridgend did not give way, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair.
Yesterday, when the Secretary of State for Wales made his announcement, I had the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the reduction in capital expenditure in Wales since 1979. The papers that have been supplied to the House show that capital expenditure in Wales for the next three years will be £349 million, £351 million and £345 million respectively—about £1 billion over three years, or an average of £330 million per annum —compared with £440 million per annum from 1979 to 1984. That is a reduction in capital expenditure which Wales can ill afford.
I realise that part of the problem arises from the success of the Government's repair and renovation policy, which presented opportunities for the people of Wales, whose housing stock is appreciably worse than the average housing stock in the United Kingdom as a whole. We have been told that 1 million houses are substandard in Britain as a whole. In Wales, the figure is almost 100,000.


Therefore, 5 per cent. of the population has 10 per cent. of the problem, and the aging housing stock in Wales reflects the old industrial patterns of many south Wales areas.
Out of that repair and renovation policy came a tremendous demand for money. I concede that the grants available were extremely attractive. The tragedy was that having given this promise before the general election in 1983, the Government subsequently failed to make the money available, and thousands of people in Wales who expected to carry out renovation programmes have been unable to do so. Some have been caught in the impossible position of having to wait six, seven or eight years before the money will be available.
The small Dwyfor district council area had asked for £1·25 million capital, but is to get only £605,000 for housing. Within the £1·25 million for which it asked, £500,000 was to deal with 130 applicants for repair grants, even though it received a total of 710 applications. Although only a small fraction of the number of applicants would have been catered for, the Government have given half what the council asked for. It will therefore be virtually impossible for any of those 710 people to be paid. Even though they have a right to expect it, hardly any of them will receive the money next year. That is the net effect on the ground of the policy which the Government are pursuing.
Dwyfor also has a contractual obligation for a refuse disposal unit, but it will be extremely difficult to meet that commitment, given the settlement that has just been announced.
There is a similar pattern in the Arfon borough council area. Even though 1,100 people had a legitimate and legal right to a repair grant, only 250 at most will be dealt with next year. The other 850 will have to wait for a second or third year until the grants are paid. That just is not good enough.
In fact, money is available. As the Secretary of State for Wales said last year, when speaking about capital allocations for 1984–85:
Local authorities can, of course, augment the spending power of those allocations by the use of capital receipts".
He made that promise to Parliament, yet he has now gone back on it. The right hon. Gentleman is in breach of promise, and as a result local authorities which took him at his word have been caught with the responsibilities but without the resources to meet them. Indeed, capital resources for local authorities are reaching the same state as post-war credits—after the depression is over, those resources will be unfrozen and local authorities may have a hope of doing something with them.
The first issue at stake is the freedom of local authorities to use money which they rightly thought would be theirs, and which the Secretary of State told them would be theirs to spend. That will now be cut to the bare bone. A couple of hundred million pounds will be held up which could be pumped into the economy to meet the cost of housing, education and the other capital projects in Wales.
Secondly, there is the effect that this announcement will have on the thousands of people who need to have this work done, not to mention the effect it will have on the 40,000 building employees at present out of work. They could have looked to the Government for the money to be used to alleviate the social problems facing many families and the unemployment problems now facing building

workers. Many small building companies will now go bankrupt because of the drying up of funds from the Government's capital programme.
The third issue is the effect on the economy. It appears that the Government think that this is necessary in the context of the PSBR, but we are really seeing money taken from the private sector as a result of the sale of council houses. We are debating today a necessary corollary of the programme of selling council houses. The Government did not envisage that by selling council houses they would be taking millions of pounds out of the private sector to pay for them. The assets remain, but they have been transferred from the public to the private sector. The money has gone the other way. Capital resources are now at the disposal of local authorities, which could use that money to build other capital resources for the community. The balance would then be the same.
Approximately the same proportion of money's-worth of capital resources would be in the public sector as in the private sector. However, less money is available in the private sector. Some private money has been dried up by the transfer to the public sector for the purchase of council houses. The point that the Government do not like is that there is less money in the private sector. It does not make any difference to the public sector borrowing requirement. It is as broad as it is long. However, the consequence of the policy of selling council houses on the availability of finance in the private sector is hitting the Government. Instead of sticking to dogma, they ought to release this money and get it to work for both economic reasons—employment—and social reasons—housing.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I have a suspicion, following the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, (Mr. Wigley), that the Treasury is rubbing its hands with glee. Far from not recognising what was likely to happen, I feel sure that it felt unhappy in 1980 when local authorities were given greater freedom over the use of their capital receipts. The Treasury felt that to give such freedom to local authorities would create problems. The success of the policy of selling council houses in particular — most of the £5 billion came from council house receipts—is now a cause of embarrassment. I fail to understand, however, why we are raising the matter on a hypothetical overspend for 1985–86. At times we have encouraged more spending. Why should we antagonise yet again our friends in the local authorities? They are upset because it was part of the deal to give them greater freedom on the capital side when we imposed tighter restrictions on the current side. It was argued that we had to tighten up much more on current account as a result of the passing of the 1980 Act.
What is happening to housing? The figures are depressing. There is a 23 per cent. reduction on the same quarter last year on the public sector housing side and an 8 per cent. reduction on the same quarter last year on the private side. That would be understandable and acceptable if there were a commensurate increase for home improvements, the policy adopted by several of my right hon. Friends. They accepted a reduction in new building because of the massive increase in home improvements. There was a fourfold increase in home improvement grants during the first four years of this Government. They have been reduced from 90 to 75 per cent. The rate of home improvement grants is slowing down. At the same time,


there is a slowing down of new building. Consequently, there is a dampening of economic activity in housing. My right hon. Friend's approach will psychologically dampen down prospects even further.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Member therefore support a move requiring local authorities to stop selling council houses because this will only lead in the future to greater embarrassment?

Dr. Hampson: No, quite the contrary. I should like there to be greater freedom within ceilings for local authorities to use their assets as they wish. The Secretary of State for the Environment deserves a great deal of praise —I am glad that he is here to hear me say this—for the way in which he defended the housing investment programme. However, there is a certain irony about the fact that although we refer to the housing investment allocation, it is not an allocation of cash but an authorisation to borrow. The permission to borrow is held up while at the same time local authorities are restricted in their freedom to use the cash which is in their hands. That distortion is even more acute when that cash, put on deposit, generates revenue. It results in interest charges, which provides them with more revenue to spend upon current account. Minister after Minister has said that most of all we have to get to grips with the current expenditure of local authorities. There was a graph which showed current account spiralling out of control, with capital account being crucified and falling away rapidly. What is the sense of our present approach when we ought to be encouraging the use of cash assets and controlling the current account of local authorities?
The first-class speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) put superbly the Treasury case for job creation. However, is the fact that these assets are available for private companies to draw on and hence, theoretically, to create jobs, the most effective way in the real world of creating jobs as a matter of urgency? Or is it not the case that if the same money were allocated to private companies for the construction of houses and for home improvements it would create jobs immediately? The person who carried out my home alterations told me that every time he is given a contract to modernise bathrooms in council houses which were built in the 1930s he hires at least 12 to 20 extra unskilled people, in a pocket of unemployment, in order to fulfil those contracts. This money is creating jobs, but which is the right way to create them? This casts real doubt upon the PESC theology relating to what is public expenditure over that period. My right hon. Friend has not yet convinced me that his proposals are worthy of support.

Mr. William O'Brien: Conservative Members have given very little encouragement to the districts and metropolitan areas where the hurt is felt most. Yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State, and today's contribution, leave no doubt about what is in the mind of the Government and the effect that it will have upon those who want new housing, particularly in the rented sector, and its effect upon improvement grants. There is also the question of the capitalisation of repairs and the infrastructure. The claim made by the Secretary of State will affect the destinies of many people. The

consequences of the Secretary of State's actions will shatter the hopes of those who want rented accommodation. His statement will add further to the despair of those who want grants from local authorities for improvements and repairs to property. It is a further blow to the construction industry. Both the public and the private sectors have appealed to the Government for a capital injection into the construction industry.
Minutes before the statement was made yesterday, a meeting was held between the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young), and the Institute of Maintenance and Building Management, at which the members of the institute appealed to the Minister to give special consideration to the construction industry because of the effects that the statement will have on the industry and because the restrictions applied by the Government will reduce still further the low level of investment in both the public and private sectors of the industry.
Conservative Members have referred to partnership agreements. They have been tried, but no real help is given to existing partnership agreements. The training needs of the industry have to be considered. The industry has been decimated because it is denied the required capital expenditure. If there is no training, the practical, experienced people who are required to make sure that the industry can continue to function effectively will not be available. That is because of the way in which the Government have been attacking the construction industry. Conservative Members have claimed that this is the first cut in the capital programme, but I remind the House that there have been capital and revenue cuts in local government for many years under this Government. The latest cut is a further blow to democracy in local government.
The Secretary of State said that there had been a 4 per cent. growth in the building industry in the past year. But a 4 per cent. growth from a low base means little, and that is how the captains and workers in the industry view the Secretary of State's statement. Unless the Government help the industry, there will be redundancies and more unemployment.
Many local authorities, including the two in my constituency, have had to stop providing improvement grants—only grants for the bare necessities are allowed —because of reductions in their HIPs. The Secretary of State's statement means that there is no hope for people who want improvement grants.
I served on the Wakefield council for many years and I know that council house improvements in that area have ceased because of expenditure cuts. About 5,000 houses built immediately after the war have had no improvements made to them. Tenants have demanded that their houses, which are 35 or 40 years old, should be brought up to modern standards. The Secretary of State's statement gives them no hope. In Wakefield, 4,000 old-age pensioners—including 518 over the age of 75—are on the waiting list. They have no hope of being housed.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I understand why my hon. Friend is concentrating on the problems of improving homes, but many people do not have a home at all. During the debate on homeless persons which I initiated on Friday, the Minister for Housing and Construction, in a sympathetic and understanding speech, said:


It is up to local authorities, first, to discharge their statutory duty and, secondly, to determine their own priorities after we have made our HIP allocations. No one disagrees with the hon. Gentleman when he says that the resources available for housing are a material factor."—[Official Report, 14 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 1337–8.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a speech.

Mr. Boyes: No. I have finished. Is not this—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Brien: I agree with some of the points made by my hon. Friend.
The Leeds district council applied for £66 million to cover its housing needs for the coming year. It is to receive only about £28 million, which means that there will be no new starts in the city of Leeds in the next financial year. There is a demand for more investment and we must wonder what will happen under the Housing Defects Act 1984. No one knows what effect the Secretary of State's statement will have on that Act. I hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will give us some information on that.
Will the Minister also explain what will happen to capital receipts from land? Will there be no interference with those receipts? Will that money be available to local authorities or will it come under the whiplash of the attack on freedom and democratic procedures in local government?

Mr. Tony Marlow: A few facts: capital allocations this year, on the same basis as last year, after London Regional Transport has been stripped out, go down from £4,200 million to £4,000 million—not a great difference. Education, despite falling rolls, will have the same level of expenditure allocated. Transport and roads will have an increased level of expenditure. Personal social services will come back a bit, but only to reflect the actual level of expenditure on those services.
There are only two significant changes. One is that the Government have devised a strategy for keeping within limits that have been agreed, but not met in the past, and the other is that local authority expenditure on housing will be reduced against last year by about £200 million.

Mr. Roger Freeman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: No. There is no time.
Local authority expenditure on housing divides, as everyone knows, between an authority's expenditure on its own resources and expenditure on grants. The House was moist yesterday with the weeping of the Opposition over grants. Hon. Members would hardly think that in the last year of the Labour Government housing grants amounted to less than £100 million, whereas in the last full year of this Government they were £700 million.
After the orchestrated cacophony of misinformation from the Opposition Front Bench yesterday, many people would not have realised that those without basic amenities in their houses are still entitled to statutory grants. Mandatory awards remain mandatory.
To the extent that discretionary grants are being reduced, if the Opposition are concerned to provide cash for the middle classes to carry out improvements to their homes—which they would probably have carried out on

their own account anyway—with the taxes of the lower paid, we shall be interested to hear that in the winding up speech from the Opposition Front Bench.
I must say to my hon. Friends that all that is happening is that cuts will be made in local authority housing programmes—the building of council houses. I do not know about my hon. Friends, but I believe that we were not sent here massively to increase the number of council houses. We are here to increase private housing. If my hon. Friends are concerned about it, let them go to other countries in Europe where there are fewer council houses and more private sector rented accommodation. Are the slums worse there? Is homelessness worse there? Is the standard of housing worse there? Do we want more council houses or do we want more private accommodation?
Look at the record of local authority housing. Look at the massive mismanagement that has taken place in some areas. Who built the tower blocks that are causing us problems now—the private sector or the public sector? Who uprooted communities and built slums in their place —the private sector or the public sector?
Let us have a quick glimpse at some of the more infamous Left-wing local authorities and see how they have dealt with their housing assets and with the people who live in their council houses. For example, 105,000 local authority homes are currently vacant. In Hackney, one council house in 14 is empty; In Liverpool, 6,500 are vacant. In the Socialist republics, vacancy rates —wastage—are three times the national average and three times as high as they need to be.
Shirts were torn on the Opposition side on behalf of the homeless yesterday. Hypocrisy! The Floor was overflowing with Socialist crocodile tears about homelessness. Why is it that Labour authorities predominate on the list of housing shame? Why are there between 700,000 and 1 million houses vacant at the moment? Is it not because they have been blighted from use by Socialist threats of retribution against the private sector? Why are Labour Members holding the sword of Damocles over the shorthold provisions which would otherwise provide housing for many of the homeless?
Time is short, so I have just one plea to make to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Some houses have been transferred from the public sector for privatisation and improvement. Privatisation is so successful in many areas of the economy—let us get hold of some of these little Moscows and pass them on to people who know how to manage them. Let us privatise more houses and cut the public cost of housing.

Mr. Barry Jones: As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has illustrated, the debate has been both contentious and lively. Indeed, it has been a Back Benchers' debate. The pity of it is that many hon. Members sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but were prevented from speaking by the pressures of time.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State undoubtedly nailed his colours of Thatcherism to the mast. But I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House rejected that academic defence. Many of us thought that we saw the very bankruptcy of the Government's policy throughout his speech, just as we saw it yesterday when he delivered his statement. The response of hon.


Members on both sides of the House demonstrated that. After a searching examination by hon. Members from all parties, there was precious little support for the principles that the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to expound from the House.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was replete with many revealing phrases, such as "public expenditure plans", "the overspend", "the contingency reserve", "the PSBR", "the cash limit" and "public sector resources". It was the dry as dust, unfeeling, intellectual approach of the Treasury Minister in exile. But we would say that housing is about people, and that is what was missing from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Indeed, it was a speech made with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his side, looking for all the world like a veritable minder. Many of us, particularly in the Opposition, believe that yesterday's statements, which have scandalised opinion within and without the House, were effectively constructed inside the Treasury. Indeed, housing Ministers seem to be the prisoners of the Treasury.
From the point of view of statecraft and of good, just government, the state and the Government should not pass up the chance to create good housing. The aim should surely be to lessen the divide between the haves and the have nots, and between those in good and those in wretched housing. If Cabinet Ministers will not tackle the rotten housing in our great cities, but instead seek to strangle the efforts of housing authorities to enhance the lives of the underprivileged, the badly housed and the unwaged, they are accomplices to the storing up of immense social and economic problems for future Governments.
I shall briefly outline some of the problems that we face in Wales. They are desperate problems, which it will take a long time to put right, even if we were in the ideal situation of having all the resources that we asked for. The Welsh housing problem is both unique and extremely worrying. It is worrying not only to those forced to live in conditions of increasing squalor but also to the various sectors of the Welsh housing industry which view the next 20 years with profound trepidation. They believe—as I do — that unless a properly planned, long-term programme of housing investment is launched very soon, we shall need to undertake massive slum clearance schemes by the end of the century.
The problem is as simple as it is serious. We have a vast stock—much larger than the average—of older houses that are now in need of urgent repair. About 39 per cent. of our total housing stock was built before 1919, compared with a figure of 29 per cent. for Britain as a whole. Indeed, 9 per cent. of Welsh homes are described as chronically unfit and another 18 per cent. need immediate renovation work. Thus we say that the Government have failed to tackle the housing crisis effectively.
I beg the Government to reconsider their inflexible approach. We have major human, social and economic problems in our valleys and in the great seaboard of towns of Swansea, Cardiff and Newport. In our valleys, one in five men are jobless. In south-east Wales health problems abound and are well above the average. As hon. Members will concede, the environment is frequently most unsatisfactory—to put it mildly. Our transport facilities are poor. In effect, the debate must be about the quality of life of those who live in the valleys of south-east Wales.
We say that it is unjust of the Government to deny those communities the prospect of a better life. Good housing is needed for that better life but it is not promised by the Government's promises as enunciated today. Housing allocations, and allocations for all other services, have in Wales taken a reduction in real terms of more than £60 million. The Welsh districts now claim an effective reduction of nearly one third in capital housing expenditure over the past two years. The reduced prescribed proportions of housing capital receipts and of other capital receipts have reduced those districts' spending power next year by £50 million at a stroke.
I say to the Secretary of State for Wales that a veritable mountain of sales receipts is staring him in the face. He should use it. He should not forget that, under his regime, a housing crisis of mammoth proportions has arisen. That crisis has paralleled a mass unemployment crisis, to which he has also contributed. We say that he has neglected the social and economic needs of the Welsh people as much as he has attacked and restricted the freedoms of local government.
Despite the Secretary of State's claims, at current rates of allowance for capital expenditure, it is estimated that it will take 40 years to improve the housing stock of the Cynon valley. That is an example of how the right hon. Gentleman has starved housing in Wales. I say to Conservative Back Benchers that Ministers clearly have not moved an inch from yesterday's much-condemned statements. Conservative Members have no doubt listened hard to find reasons for supporting the Government tonight, but if they objected yesterday to the Government's policy, they will surely object to it tonight. They should remember the many homeless, the unemployed building and construction workers, the many tenants, and particularly — perhaps from their point of view — the hard-hit owner-occupiers, who should be given grounds for hope.
For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to support us in the Lobby.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): We are being asked to adjourn the House and lose the business. I can confirm to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that there will be an opportunity in the new year to vote on the orders relating to these capital expenditure matters.
Three main points of view have been represented in the debate. There is the point of view of those on the Opposition Benches who do not believe in control of public expenditure and whose own reckless pursuit of that principle led them to the IMF and the largest cutback in capital spending that Britain has ever seen. For the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to talk about stop-go policies against that background was a pretty good impertinence.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Edwards: We heard a great deal—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I am going to reply to the debate.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not have a repetition of what happened earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and others complained about the condition of the housing stock, but—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you rule whether it is in order for a Minister, replying to a debate, to mention any Front Bench spokesman and not give way to that hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had all this earlier this afternoon. The House well knows the convention. If the Secretary of State or any other hon. Member does not give way that is entirely a matter for him.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and others complained about the condition of the housing stock. But we know that Labour councils have created some of the worst housing slums. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Hubbard-Miles) reminded us that they had done nothing to improve their housing stock. The Government have made a concerted and determined effort to improve that stock. The latest example of that is the scheme for priority estates, which have such importance in some of our inner cities. The Opposition demand an unlimited right to spend accumulated receipts, yet they fought tooth and nail to prevent the sales that produced those receipts.
The second point of view in the debate is that of those of my hon. Friends who believe that Government policies to control spending should be relaxed, at least to the extent of increasing capital expenditure. But even they recognise that the totality of expenditure must be controlled and preferably matched by the control or reduction of current spending. The CBI was called in aid yesterday to support capital spending. It has specifically drawn attention to the need to cut current spending in order to make that possible.
The third point of view that has emerged from the debate is provided by those who, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, believe that the Government's strategy of tight control of public spending on which we were elected is vital if we are to keep interest rates and taxes down and stimulate the industrial investment that alone will create the additional social resources that we all want. Some of them believe profoundly in that strategy but are understandably concerned, perhaps because we have not explained clearly enough, about why the overhang of housing receipts threatens that strategy. Others perhaps recognise that threat but are concerned about our relationship with local government
I want to deal with those understandable concerns, but I must first make it clear that what we did yesterday when we made the statements was not introduce a new policy; nor introduce a new round of cuts. We are concerned to deliver the plans that we announced to the House in the public expenditure White Paper which the House subsequently approved by the vote on 6 December. I shall return in a moment to the inherent threat to our public expenditure plans.
First, I want to say a word about one thing on which there is probably agreement on both sides of the House. It was raised in the debate by my right hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Hexham who spoke of the inadequacies, under successive Governments, of the longterm arrangements for capital planning by local authorities. It is undoubtedly true. We have had underspend under both Labour and Conservative Governments. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend that in an earlier age the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) urged us to spend, spend, spend, and break the hank. He did, and the Labour party called in the IMF and had a full-scale moratorium.
We had our own problem of underspend in the early 1980s and then we urged local authorities to spend. When they did it was on a scale that threatened our public expenditure control programme. It is because of those inadequacies—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I want to deal in detail with the point.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Edwards: It was because of those inadequacies—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Edwards: —that, in the summer, I launched consultations with Welsh local authorities and my right hon. Friend is launching parallel discussions with local government. That is why I announced yesterday that we have begun to move towards a system that gives greater stability and assurance, flexibility around the cash limit, enables us to carry forward a reasonable level of underspend, and accepts that a comparable level of overspend should not lead to mid-term intervention or moratorium. That, combined with increasingly firm forward indications, will enable local authorities to plan better for the future.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Edwards: Some hon. Members have implied that local authorities have been prevented from making use of the assets that have been released from the sale of houses. But over the past three years a large proportion of new housing receipts were built into the housing allocations in order to encourage local authorities to use them, and, in addition, the authorities were free to use the prescribed proportions. If, in practice, those built-in receipts had been used simply to finance house building instead of, for example, for reducing debt, we might not have the threat to the cash limit that we now have. The fact is that up-to-date housing allocations have carried 100 per cent. borrowing approval and the availability of that has enabled local authorities to accumulate receipts on a massive scale. Those receipts provide a large potential overspend on the cash limit, and, indeed, enabled local authorities in effect to spend their resources twice over.
The potential overspend amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds and it comes on top of a current expenditure overspend. All the receipts have flooded in over two or three years and all that the Government are urging is that local authorities should spread that expenditure over a somewhat longer period—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Edwards: —and not to spend it all at once.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), in an intervention, said that authorities were not being allowed to spend their receipts. They are being spent. They are being used to enhance spending over the net amounts that we could otherwise afford. They are making an important contribution to the spending power that is available.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) suggested that we had cut back sharply in Wales the spending plans over the next three years compared with the previous six years. The hon. Gentleman got his maths wrong. He calculated it on five years when the comparison was with six years.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: rose—

Mr. Barry Jones: rose—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I wish to answer the points raised in the debate. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will forgive me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Barry Jones.

Mr. Jones: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not tell the House that, as a Housing Minister, he has the worst record of any Welsh Office Minister? Is it not a fact that last year his starts record was a pathetic 1,500 houses?

Mr. Edwards: It is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman to believe that the only contribution to housing should come from the local authority sector. He has not referred to the massive increase in investment that is going on in the private sector.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is little time left. The House wishes to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman also forgets the Government's massive increase in expenditure on housing improvements that the Labour Government totally neglected.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Edwards: The Labour Government spent £90 million a year. We spent — [Interruption.] The hypocrisy of the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is nearly the Christmas holidays. Can we proceed in peace?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is behaving like a Christmas clown. I remind my hon. Friends, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe did, that our success in keeping the overall control of public spending is the major element in the rising industrial investment that is taking place. Interest rates are lower than they would otherwise be, despite the pressures on sterling, the effect of a strong dollar, the mining strike and movements in oil prices.
Private sector building is especially sensitive to movements in interest rates. Manufacturing industry is investing now because it has confidence in our policies. In sharp contrast to the humiliation suffered by the Labour Chancellor and Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is setting out to two major international meetings with the confidence of investment, the markets and other world leaders behind her. They know that the Government mean what they say when they set about a policy, and that they will maintain it. The House by its vote will wish to maintain that confidence.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 325.

Division No. 58]
[6.43 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dixon, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Douglas, Dick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Ashdown, Paddy
Dubs, Alfred


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Barnett, Guy
Ellis, Raymond


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Harry


Beggs, Roy
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Tony
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blair, Anthony
Forrester, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeman, Roger


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Freud, Clement


Bruce, Malcolm
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Godman, Dr Norman


Campbell, Ian
Golding, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clarke, Thomas
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clay, Robert
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cohen, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.


Coleman, Donald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Conlan, Bernard
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Howells, Geraint


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Douglas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Crowther, Stan
Hume, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Janner, Hon Greville


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Johnston, Russell


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert






Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Redmond, M.


Kirkwood, Archy
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Lambie, David
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lamond, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, J. W.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Loyden, Edward
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John


McCusker, Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Shore. Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


McTaggart, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maginnis, Ken
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Maynard, Miss Joan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stott, Roger


Michie, William
Strang, Gavin


Mikardo, Ian
Straw, Jack


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


Nellist, David
Wainwright, R.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


O'Brien, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Welsh, Michael


Park, George
White, James


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pavitt, Laurie
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Penhaligon, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pike, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Sean Hughes and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Randall, Stuart



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brinton, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baldry, Tony
Browne, John


Batiste, Spencer
Bruinvels, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Bryan, Sir Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Buck, Sir Antony


Best, Keith
Budgen, Nick


Bevan David Gilroy
Bulmer, Esmond


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burt, Alistair


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butcher, John


Blackburn, John
Butler, Hon Adam


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Butterfill, John


Body, Richard
Carlisle, John (N Luton)





Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hooson, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Conway, Derek
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Coombs, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert
Kershaw, Sir Anthory


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kilfedder, James A.


Eggar, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Farr, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Latham, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawrence, Ivan


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fox, Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lord, Michael


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Luce, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lyell, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Gorst, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
MacKay, John (Argyle &amp; Bute)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maclean, David John


Greenway, Harry
Madel, David


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Major, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malins, Humfrey


Grist, Ian
Malone, Gerald


Ground, Patrick
Maples, John


Grylls, Michael
Marland, Paul


Gummer, John Selwyn
Marlow, Antony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mates, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mather, Carol


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Harris, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Harvey, Robert
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mellor, David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Merchant, Piers


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayes, J.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayward, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Heddle, John
Moate, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Monro, Sir Hector


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Hickmet, Richard
Moore, John






Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moynihan, Hon C.
Spence, John


Murphy, Christopher
Spencer, Derek


Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nelson, Anthony
Squire, Robin


Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Newton, Tony
Stanley, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Normanton, Tom
Stern, Michael


Norris, Steven
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Osborn, Sir John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Ottaway, Richard
Stokes, John


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Terlezki, Stefan


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Pollock, Alexander
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Powley, John
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


Price, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Proctor, K. Harvey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Raffan, Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walden, George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Watts, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Ryder, Richard
Whitfield, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Whitney, Raymond


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wolfson, Mark


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Nicholas
Woodcock, Michael


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday 21 December do adjourn till Wednesday 9 January.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. John Silkin: Most hon. Members will think that this Christmas recess is deserved and, indeed, overdue. Their complaint might be that the period of the recess is too short rather than too long. With great respect to those hon. Members who may believe that they have national or international points to raise, in an extremity the House can always be recalled. What cannot be done, however, is to give a feeling of necessity to the vital interests of our constituents.
I have such a constituent, who is liable to be deported immediately after Christmas. I must pay a qualified tribute to the Minister of State, Home Office, and I have given him notice that I was going to try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this debate. I asked him on 30 November to delay deporting the lady at least until after Christmas, so that she can spend Christmas with her family. This he has done, but the fact remains that he notified me and her only yesterday. One can imagine the agony through which she and her family have gone during the period until yesterday, and through which they will go between now and her almost certain date of deportation early in the New year.
The facts of the case are alarming, and I do not believe that they will be contested by anyone. The lady's name is Ayse Halil and she has three children. The first is a boy, Sebah, who is aged 11 and is a British citizen. He was born in England and has always lived here. The second boy, Sarhan, is aged seven and is also a British citizen. The third, a girl, was born in Cyprus three years ago. The two elder children attend the local primary school, Myatt Garden school, where they are so popular that it is not difficult on any day to gather together many children and parents to see what can be done to help the lady who is being deported. That is a reflection of the popularity of the children and of the family in the locality.
Here we come to an interesting point. The grandparents have lived in Britain since 1971, and Ayse's father served with the British Army for 25 years before that time. He came here as a British citizen in 1971, and his son—Ayse's brother—is also a British citizen who lives here. If Ayse is deported, her elder son, who has lived here all his life, will either have to be left behind or must accompany his mother to the Turkish part of Cyprus, where he must speak a language that he does not understand—none of the children speaks Turkish—and must remain in what is effectively a foreign country for as long as it may be his fate to live there.
I do not contest the Minister's suggestion — the mother does—that she entered Britain by deception. I say only that she did so in 1971, when the rest of the family was already here. Had the parents known what to do, their daughter as well as their son would have had British nationality. But her father, who served for so long in the British Army, did not know what to do, so she did not acquire British nationality. She came here in 1971, she was regarded as an illegal immigrant and after a considerable period she was deported.
However, she returned again because her two older children were here. She is a very dutiful daughter and


sister and a loving mother. She came back to be with her whole family. The extended family of grandparents, parents and children is typical of the way in which she grew up, and it sometimes still exists in the villages of our country. It was not unnatural that she should return, particularly as her relationship with her husband had undergone a difficult phase, and she is now pursuing an action for divorce.
The Minister, in such circumstances, can do one of two things. First, he can exercise compassion; I give him credit for some compassion because he has at least allowed her to stay until Christmas. Secondly, he can say that she was wrong in offending against the rules and that therefore she must go, regardless of what may happen to the family, her parents, her brother, herself or her children.
The Minister is basically a compassionate man, but one of the principal ingredients of compassion is not just sympathy with somebody in distress, but imagination. It is the ability to override bureaucracy, which will always, in my experience, tell one why one cannot do something. The Minister can tell the bureaucracy that it has to do something. Here is a family that has settled well into the community and is popular, and which consists of three generations. I believe that somebody who served in the British Army for four or five years is worthy of some support, and somebody who served for 25 years is entitled to even more support by that length of service. However, the Minister does not hold that view.
The Minister makes his point on the issue of the deception—I do not know whether there was one, but if there was, it was understandable. He does not view the matter from a human angle but from a bureaucratic angle. When I pointed out something that his predecessor had said in the debate on the British Nationality Act, the Minister chose to dispute it with me, so it is worth while repeating what was said then. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that any child who had been here for 10 years should be regarded as entitled to remain here, whatever the status of the parents. He said:
We have chosen the tenth birthday as the cut-off point because we would not wish to insist on the deportation of a child born here who had lived here for 10 years. If his parents are here subject to conditions of stay or in breach of the immigration control at the time of birth, 10 years seems to the Government to be a long enough period in which to expect those problems to have been resolved.
Furthermore, the first 10 years of a child's life clearly are the formative years. By the age of 10, we believe, the child's roots could be regarded as being firmly set in this country." — [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 26 November 1981; c. 221.]
There could not be a clearer picture of the oldest child, who is 11.
When I put these various points to the Minister he replied in a long detailed letter. He said:
Turning now to your specific points, you have suggested Mrs. Halil and her family have a long association with this country. But this is not so. Her father and her paternal grandfather were, like Mrs. Halil herself, born in Cyprus.
I am a little older than the Minister of State, and I can remember that Cyprus has a rather long association with the British Crown, which started in 1878 when Benjamin Disraeli brought back from Berlin peace with honour, and also Cyprus. As a result of that association, a number of people on that island joined the British Army, and I made that point to the Minister. It would seem to me that 25 years is quite a long association, but the Minister is entitled to take a different view.
The letter continues:
Although her parents were registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies when she was still a child"—
that is worth noting, as well—
they continued to live in Cyprus for many years indeed, until after Mrs. Halil had grown up and married, and they never sought registration for their children.
I repeat that they did not even know that it was necessary, and why should they? The letter continues:
Mrs. Halil had not contemplated accompanying her parents when they emigrated, and as on marriage she had ceased to be a dependent daughter, she could not in any case have come with them to this country for settlement.
What was the major crime that this woman committed against the British law, constitution and everything else? It is that her parents did not register her as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What a terrible mistake she made when she was about nine or 10. I understand that the Minister of State would wish to punish her for that for the rest of her life.
One of the essential agreements of compassion is imagination. We are dealing with a family which does not speak a word of Turkish, which is useful—the father is well employed — is liked in the community and has settled down well. If the Minister of State gets his way, what will happen? The family will go to Cyprus. The children will be homeless. They will be separated from the rest of the family—from their uncle whom they look on as a second father, and their grandparents—and from their school friends. The Minister of State is condemning them to that.
I leave the House with one last gem in the letter of 6 February 1984 written to me be the Minister of State. It deserves to be put on the desk of every civil servant in Britain. I pointed out that the lady was being divorced and that I was worried about the children's fate. The Minister replied:
I am not satisfied that her circumstances in Cyprus would be markedly worse than those of any other divorcee with young children.
Cyprus is, however, a foreign land, which is partitioned and speaks a language that the children cannot understand, and the children will be taken from the rest of their family.

Sir Dudley Smith: I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the Christmas recess without an extensive debate on a subject that is exercising a large number of minds—the BBC licence fee. Although I know that this subject will be debated in another measure—

Mr. Michael Latham: Much later.

Sir Dudley Smith: —much later, as my hon. Friend says—it is important that there should be contributions to this discussion.
There is no popular recognition of the need for a substantial increase in the television licence fee. Many people regard it as wrong that, to obtain a television set, one must pay a fee, whether or not one watches BBC programmes. Some people watch the opposition channels far more frequently. I am sure that all hon. Members are worried about the fact that although £60-odd for a licence fee does not matter much to an affluent person, many people on fixed incomes — pensioners and the unemployed—who will not receive any assistance in this respect, will find that amount a severe imposition.
Over the years, the BBC has made a tremendous contribution in establishing radio and television, but it is not without its faults, some of which have grown up recently. Stories of a prince's ransom paid to some disc jockeys do not go down well, nor do accounts of junkets abroad for executives or stories of a not especially senior official stationed in north America who, if the press is to be believed, has been jetting backwards and forwards on Concorde. Those stories would certainly not go down well with two or three multinationals which, as a mark of stringency, impressed upon their directors and senior executives the fact that they must travel club class, rather than first class, when they travel backwards and forwards across the Atlantic. Even today, there is a newspaper story about a well-known television presenter on breakfast television who is, allegedly, offered the kind of money that one would expect an international footballer to receive. I am not saying that these are vast amounts of money compared with the totality of BBC finances, but it is indicative of an attitude that needs to be changed when dealing with public money.
The BBC should stick to those aspects of television in which it excels. The BBC excels in a number of respects. The BBC pioneered the advance of television, but it has, however, gone into other areas that need to be curbed in view of the request for financial stringency. By and large, breakfast television is a waste. Local radio is often a disaster. This is a highly competitive area, and time and again one learns that BBC local radio is well eclipsed by the commercial opposition.
I believe —this might not go down well with the Opposition — that the BBC might have more friends among Conservative Members and Conservatives outside the House if it were a little less biased. In many instances, it is fairly easy to detect that the BBC is left of centre. [Interruption.] The Opposition may scoff, but, to ascertain the reaction, they should ask the public. Commentators, analysts and presenters with a bias can be clearly perceived to be in the majority, and that is worrying in a democracy in which the BBC is the national broadcasting institution.
I am not suggesting that there is any conspiracy against the Government or the Conservative party. I am suggesting, however, that for years the corporation, perhaps innocently, has been attracting many more people from the Left than is healthy — be they producers, executives or presenters. I am talking not merely about current affairs; it spans the whole spectrum of programmes, including drama.
Above all else, the BBC should be seen to be neutral and even-handed, and most people would expect that of the BBC. The BBC must be properly funded. It is unsatisfactory to the corporation and to the public at large that there should be a special form of taxation to raise the revenue to operate the BBC. That system has applied for a long time. It is understandable in view of the way in which the BBC grew up, but I do not believe that it can hold water today. Although some fee element should be retained, there must, in future, be some element of advertising to provide for the corporation's financing needs.
The BBC, which is so good in many ways — technique and achievement—will not compromise itself by a sensible input of advertising. I am sure that the BBC

in its heart of hearts will realise that, and most hon. Members — certainly Conservative Members — would subscribe to that view. Sufficient free advertising occurs on the BBC at present. Books and records are plugged, and during all kinds of discussion programmes there is a free dropping of product names. Once upon a time that was totally prohibited. Today there is advertising all the time. Let the BBC come clean and do that properly and sensibly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House — I know that this is not entirely his responsibility, but he is a man of enormous influence—will consider seriously a strictly limited increase in the licence fee when we return in the new year and that there will be a genuine move towards some type of limited advertising.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Two matters should be debated before we adjourn for the Christmas recess. The first concerns unemployment. Most hon. Members, and certainly Labour Members, have waited for a long time for a statement that the Government will really tackle the scourge of unemployment. I raised this matter last year on the motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas recess. I said then that Conservative Members want the unemployment level to be reduced substantially. But they have not yet persuaded the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to give sufficient attention to this problem and to have a think tank considering the unemployment problem, which is the scourge of our time. We are simply tinkering with the matter and hoping that something will happen.
We need to have a fundamental look at unemployment. We shall have to redefine what we mean by unemployment. It cannot continue to be a lottery. Last Christmas, I related the story of a young woman who said to me that she had a degree. She had been unemployed for only a short time and had managed to secure a reasonable job. When she went to the social security office for the last time to get her P45, tax forms and other papers in order, the young men and women she had met during the few months that she was unemployed congratulated her enthusiastically and wished her well. They said, "You have a job, and we haven't but we shall remember you with great fondness." The young woman told me that the sad thing was that many of the young men and women, who were as qualified as she was, had not been lucky enough to secure a job. In other words, obtaining a job is a lottery. Some people can obtain jobs, but many suitably qualified people cannot. That is a scandal and a shame.
Whether we accept the massaged figures of about 3.5 million people at present unemployed, or the probably truer figure of 4 million if one includes the number of people who do not bother to register because there is no job available, it is a scandal of the first order that we have not given all our time and attention towards tackling the problem.
The massaged figure of ·5 million people unemployed is being increased at the rate of about 20,000 a month. The optimistic view is that unemployment will remain at that level; the pessimistic view is that the figure might double or be half as much again and add about a further 375,000 to the number of unemployed. We do not seem to be doing anything about it apart from tinkering a little with job


creation. Some attention should have been paid to this problem. The Cabinet should have given its powerful attention to solving the problem.
Other countries are dealing with the problem. West Germany is tackling the problem, and we must. The social fabric of this nation cannot endure if we continue to add to the already far too high total of unemployed. I shudder to think what will happen if we increase the unemployment figure by a further 200,000, 250,000, 350,000 or 400,000 year by year. The Government must make a statement to show that they recognise the scope of the problem and that they are going to do something about it.
The second subject about which I wish to talk is that of people being persuaded to take out guarantee insurance when they buy television sets. They are called extended guarantees and they are for consumer goods—television sets, refrigerators, deep freezes, washers, driers and other such commodities. Many people are persuaded by slick salesmanship and, we must recognise, by the attraction of the security obtained from paying an insurance premium of £30 or £40. They then believe that the television, or whatever, is guaranteed and that maintenance will be free if it needs repairing. They may have to pay a bob or two for one or two small things, but they have a virtual trouble-free guarantee for about five or seven years.
The problem is that many of those guarantees have turned out to be bogus and worthless. It is calculated that 800,000 people have taken out such guarantees. The companies have made rich pickings. When the people have called upon the insurance company they have found that it has gone bust. If one calculates that the companies have to pay some commission to the agents promoting the insurance, if the companies finish up with only half of what the 800,000 people have paid, they will make a great deal of money.
I believe that we are to have an insolvency Bill in the new year. There was an article in one of the Sunday newspapers about it, and those who have considered the matter do not think the Bill will deal with the problem that I have described.
Christmas is probably one of the most important times of the year for selling extended guarantee insurance. Most hon. Members will agree that it is the time when most people buy such goods and seek insurance. We have not had a statement from the Government about the matter. The Minister has been rather dismissive. I infer from what he said that people are expected to be more prudent when buying that kind of insurance. We have a duty as Members of Parliament to protect people. They are not imprudent. They have been sold bogus and worthless policies. I am not saying that the people who sell them know that, but when the customers call upon the companies to deliver what they are insured against, they find out that the companies are no longer in business. We have a duty to protect such people.
Those are the two matters to which I think we should have an answer before we adjourn for the Christmas recess.

Mr. Michael Latham: I am sure that no one in his right senses believes that we should rise later than Friday, so the points that are being made in the debate are for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

House to contemplate during the recess. I wish to raise a number of points briefly which my right hon. Friend may wish to brood upon before he replies.
The first is about disarmament. As my right hon. Friend knows, some extremely important talks have been taking place in this country between the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev over the past few days. The Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko, is to meet Mr. Shultz and other such meetings will undoubtedly take place. I hope that the coming year will see a substantial commitment by the leaders of the West and the East to getting some agreement signed during the course of 1985.
For example, I cannot understand why it should not be possible to reach an agreement on chemical warfare. No one can favour the continuance of chemical warfare or the weapons to sustain it. The negotiations on that matter, which have been dragging on for so long, should be able to be brought to a conclusion.
Secondly, if both sides give sufficient impetus, it should be possible to bring to a more successful conclusion the negotiations on balanced force reductions that have been going on in Vienna for over 10 years and which have made no progress. I also hope that the Americans and the Russians will address themselves seriously in the new negotiations that are to take place, to the proposals that President Reagan made over a year ago about what he called "build down"—reducing the numbers of strategic weapons which exist.
I defer to no one in my belief in a strong defence policy, but I firmly believe that there are too many missiles in the world. It is possible to have a safe world and a safe balance if we proceed in the way that the President suggested with a mutual build down of the number of missiles. I hope that the Government will place the full weight of their diplomacy behind constructive talks to reach agreements during 1985.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) mentioned unemployment. We have been reading a good deal in the newspapers recently about the fact that the Government are contemplating new initiatives on unemployment. They may be reflected in the Budget, but we must wait and see.
I hope that it will be understood by Ministers that many hon. Members on both sides of the House regard the reduction of unemployment as a matter which should be at the top of the Government's list of priorities. We are looking for initiatives from Ministers—not just throwing money at the problem—which will deal with this great social evil. I hope that nothing will be ruled out of serious consideration in advance. During the past few months there has been an investigation into various forms of social security. If there has not been an investigation into reducing the pension age of men, there should be one. That would have a substantial effect on the unemployment problem. It is a policy which has great public support, and it should be examined much more urgently.
I remember raising that matter with the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) when he was Minister for Social Security in the previous Labour Government. Ministers in both Governments have said that the policy is too expensive. Unemployment is costing the country more and more and we cannot afford to ignore such initiatives. I hope that the reduction of the pension age for men will be considered seriously by Ministers between now and the Budget, along with an expansion of the job release scheme.
I received a letter this morning from a constituent which stated that about 84,000 are in receipt of the job release allowance, which is undoubtedly a worthwhile contribution. However, I hope that the scheme will be expanded. The unfortunate decision was taken some time ago to raise the qualifying age to 64 years and we should be looking to reducing it to the previous qualifying age of 62 years.
I hope that between now and Parliament meeting again on 9 January there will be a serious consultation on the limited list of drugs. I believe that every hon. Member has been disgusted by the circular which has been put out by Roche Products Ltd.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Absolutely scandalous.

Mr. Latham: Indeed. That circular has done great harm, undoubtedly, to the constructive points which have been made by general practitioners, which have been taken seriously by all hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to assure me that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health is starting from the basic proposition that patients must be able to have the drugs they need, and if two drugs are the same, it obviously makes sense to choose the cheaper one. I am sure that everyone supports that approach.
However, the present proposals seem to be unduly restrictive, for example, on laxatives, which are especially important to the elderly; they should be considered again. There should be proper consultation between now and 31 January.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong-headed of the British Medical Association apparently to refuse to enter into consultation on this issue?

Mr. Latham: I concur with my hon. Friend's intervention. I have stated that I take that view in letters that I have written to general practitioners in my constituency. It is most regrettable that the BMA has taken such an attitude. I hope that it will reconsider its position as quickly as possible so that the best professional advice is available to Ministers before they make an important decision.
Finally, many of us are concerned about the attitude which seems to come from the Department of Health and Social Security, that rural maternity units are undesirable and should be closed. The Department seems to take the view that mothers-to-be should give birth in large central hospitals. There is no support for such a policy in rural areas. Mothers-to-be attach great importance to, and much enjoy, the support and help that they are given in rural maternity units such as those in Melton Mowbray and Oakham. If the DHSS takes the view that it can get away with closing rural maternity units through regional health authorities or district health authorities so that all facilities can be concentrated in large general hospitals, it must realise that that will be opposed by those representing rural constituencies.
I hope that that will be understood by Ministers. Our constituents are incensed by the "concentration" policy. I have raised this matter previously with Ministers and I

must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I have not been satisfied with their responses. I shall continue to raise the issue until I get satisfaction.

Mr. Max Madden: In joining others in resisting the Adjournment of the House, I wish to make a firm protest about the way in which the Government, and especially the Foreign Office, have sought to introduce a fee for issuing entry certificates. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is in his place, as he had to endure three points of order from me on this issue last week. He undertook during business questions on Thursday to consult his colleagues in the Foreign Office to ascertain the procedures that they are proposing to introduce for entry certificate fees. I was therefore concerned to learn yesterday from the Foreign Office that it intended today to lay an order that would seek to introduce a charge of £10 for entry certificates from 1 January. It appears that it intends to use a procedure that is not subject to parliamentary procedure, either that of approval or annulment. It proposes to introduce an order to amend the Consular Fees Act 1980.
Yesterday, there was a meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is charged with responsibility for scrutinising such orders. It was therefore denied an opportunity of scrutinising the proposed Foreign Office order. That goes to reinforce the concern that I and others have about the way in which the Foreign Office has proceeded.
It was proposed originally by the Foreign Secretary on 22 November to introduce entry certificate fees and the proposal is to become a fact in the way that I have outlined. Many hon. Members may not consider this to be a matter of great significance, so I remind the House that £10 is about a third of the annual income of a Bangladeshi family living in a rural area in that country. We should be concerned also about the principle lying behind the introduction of such a fee. It diminishes the right conferred by the Immigration Act 1971 on Commonwealth citizens freely to enter the United Kingdom. It may be ultra vires to diminish such a right conferred by statute by means of an order of the sort that I have described. As I have said, the order will seek to amend the Consular Fees Act 1980, which I would argue was never construed, when enacted, as a suitable vehicle for introducing a charge for entry certificates.
The entry clearance procedure, when established, was presented as a means of facilitating entry into the United Kingdom for Commonwealth citizens and others. It was suggested that it would avoid protracted and distressing problems of the sort that are often encountered at ports of entry. These problems are often encountered by those who have entry clearance permission, but that is by the way. There was no suggestion when the procedure was first introduced—and certainly when the debates took place prior to the introduction of the entry clearance procedure — that a fee would be introduced. It was never suggested that the Government considered a fee to be appropriate. It is entirely inappropriate for such a fee to be introduced, and if it is considered to be a precedent, we are no doubt on a fee escalator for entry certificates.
We all remember that nationality fees have been introduced and increased substantially over a short period. Even the Government were embarrassed by the obscene profits that they made from nationality fees. They were


persuaded some time ago to introduce modest reductions in the fees charged. If an entry certificate fee of £l0 is introduced, it is likely that a substantial increase will be suggested in the near future.
It is an outrage for the Government to introduce a fee by means of laying an order that will not be subject to parliamentary procedures. They have compounded the outrage by adopting a back-door method to implement it. They have committed a contempt of Parliament in so doing as they have denied those of us with an interest in these matters any opportunity to debate the fee in principle. We shall have no opportunity to question the Executive about the way in which the scheme was proposed.
It is clear that the scheme was cobbled together in a hurry. That was done in desperation when the Foreign Office was beleaguered by criticisms of the inadequacy of our overseas aid budget. With cuts in the British Council's budget and a reduction of the moneys available to the external services, some bright spark, no doubt buried in the Treasury, thought that it would be a good idea to introduce a fee for entry certificates.
I understand that the proposal has been resisted considerably within the Foreign Office, and that is understandable. I hope that considerable second thoughts will be given to the introduction of a fee during the recess. I hope, too, that the proposal will be deferred and that the House will be given an opportunity to debate the introduction of a fee so that we are not presented with a fait accompli.
Several hon. Members mentioned the financing of the BBC. I should like to comment on that issue which, as hon. Members said, will perhaps be debated more extensively at a later hour. I should like to express my concern and that of many of my constituents at the application by the BBC for a £19 increase in the licence for a colour television. It is clear that many pensioners will be unable to pay such an increase, if it is agreed. They might be faced with the prospect of giving up watching television altogether or, like my constituent Mrs. Lilian Swailes, might find themselves in prison. Mrs. Swailes is a widow, a pensioner, who was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment recently because she could not pay a fine that resulted from her inability to pay her television licence fee. Other pensioners in my constituency have recently made it clear that they are prepared to go to prison because they do not want to pay the reported increase in their television licence fee.
I am sure that this belief is shared by many other hon. Members. I believe that the only way of resolving this matter satisfactorily is for a substantial increase in the pension to be agreed, which would allow pensioners to make choices on what they spend their own money. However, it is unlikely that there will be such a substantial increase in the pension, particularly under this Government. Therefore, the Government's options narrow considerably. They know that this has been a controversial issue for many years. The time has now come for all pensioner households to have free television.
Ministers should understand that television is often the only form of entertainment for pensioners, and often the only company for them. Many are isolated — the removal of bus services, the increase in bus fares and other difficulties have isolated many of them, who now look to that little box in the corner as their only entertainment and company. We should see television more and more as a

social service for pensioners. That should be recognised by the Exchequer funding the moneys necessary to enable all pensioner households to enjoy free television.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who referred to this subject, floated the idea that we could alleviate the problems over the financing of the BBC by the introduction of advertising. That presents a very serious threat. The idea might have superficial attractions for some hon. Members and sections of the public, but I believe that it presents a serious threat to the programme standards of the BBC, and certainly to its accountability. It would expose it even more than at present to commercial pressures. There are considerable doubts about the availability of advertising revenue to be extended to the BBC and, if there were advertising, what would be the impact upon many newspapers, particularly regional newspapers throughout the country?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman does not want the licence fee to go up, or if he wants it to go up by a minimum amount, yet does not accept the idea of advertising income for the BBC, how does he propose that the BBC should balance its budget? Does he propose that the Government should subsidise the BBC? If so, it would become an arm of Government. It is s difficult problem. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give me an answer.

Mr. Madden: It is a difficult problem and has been around for a long time. Government financing of the BBC's overseas services has not created the problems mentioned by many detractors of the idea of Exchequer funding of the BBC. In my view, it should be funded from the Exchequer as essentially a social service and that could be done for a fraction of the cost of Trident nuclear submarines, for instance, and would do a great deal more good to many more people than increasing the licence fee in substantial dollops, as has been done year by year. If we continue with the licence revenue system, it will become more unwieldy than it is today.
As an hon. Member representing part of Yorkshire, it would be impossible for me to argue that we should not adjourn without mentioning the plight of the unemployed and the extent of unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and in my constituency, where in parts it reaches 40 per cent., 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. The debate earlier today highlighted the damage that Government policies are doing to the prospects of getting a job for many of my constituents, particularly school leavers, and those who have endured long-term unemployment for two, three and four years.
Those people want the Government to change their policies. They want a change of priorities. They do not want to see available resources being given in tax cuts to the relatively well-off; they want them to be put into public expenditure—into massive house building and construction programmes and improving the infrastructure of our county and our cities. Those are the sort of projects that they want. They do not know how long they will have to wait for changes in policy to come from the Government, but they do know that that is the only solution that they can look to. They hope that the Government will respond quickly to their plight and their needs, which they see so vividly. They know what the remedies are. What they are waiting for is a response from the Government, and they hope that it will come sooner rather than later.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I make no apology to the House for raising a problem that is probably exclusive to the county of Cornwall. We require an early indication from the Government in respect of the county's application for a milk quota for the new agricultural college that is to serve the needs of Cornwall and is located in my constituency. I should add that I have had extended correspondence on the issue with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I informed his private office earlier today that I intended raising the matter this evening.
As the House will know, Cornwall is a rural county. The importance of farming to the economy is not in question. Indeed, it is only an accident of history that no farm college was located within the county. The need for a farm education and agricultural training centre in the county for the national certificate in agriculture and, in addition, for training and education for part-time students was identified as an urgent priority in 1983, and was supported by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the Department of Education and Science.
The county council was offered a lease of the 440-acre Duchy home farm in August 1983, which could be used for agricultural education and training in the county's main agricultural enterprises. Being located in the south-west of the United Kingdom, Cornwall is essentially a livestock-rearing area. We like to think that we grow the best natural grass in the world. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) will not disagree. A herd of 75 cows was established in 1983 on a county council smallholding as an interim measure, to be ready to transfer to the home farm in September 1984. However, in April this year we saw the implementation of milk quotas as a result of the EEC decision.
As no milk was produced on that farm on 2 April 1984, it did not automatically qualify for a quota under the regulations, and it could not be considered as a special case as the rules in that respect are very strictly drawn. Furthermore, the county council is unlikely to succeed in claiming a quota on the basis of exceptional hardship as it would have to establish that farming was its main occupation.
On the other hand, approval has been obtained from the National Certification Council for Agriculture for the one-year agricultural course to begin in September 1985. In practice, it is likely to begin in September 1986, but that does not alter the fact that the uncertainty is causing problems. Day release students are already attending the new agriculture college, and it is hoped eventually to provide residential accommodation for about 40 students who will undertake the basic one-year course.
The total capital outlay by the county council for the project is likely ultimately to be about £750,000. The livestock, new dairy units and other features have already cost about £250,000. At present, young people from Cornwall wishing to undertake a basic, standard one-year course in agriculture have to attend establishments in Devon or Somerset. With the exception of the cost of education, the farm is to be run on a financially self-supporting basis. The lack of a milk quota means that the farm will run the risk of a levy, which could significantly affect its financial viability.
I believe that the hardship caused by the EEC regulations to local authorities, such as Cornwall, which aim to provide an agricultural education provision of their own must be recognised and alleviated. The regulations which introduced milk quotas made no reference to the requirements of agriculture education or farm extension in general. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to give us an assurance that, once the new EEC Commission is established in 1985, the Government will apply to Brussels for our special requirements to be taken into account. I do not criticise either the Commission or the Council of Agriculture Ministers for this omission with regard to agriculture training establishments. Nevertheless, there is a real problem.
It would be ludicrous if, after all these years, we finally achieved a farm college for Cornwall, which is essentially a livestock county, but could not allow students to be trained in milk production and all that is involved in the running of a dairy herd. Dairying is a fundamental part of the farm economy of Cornwall. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has considerable sympathy with our position, which arises from a pure accident of history. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend, with his west country connections and no doubt his deep understanding of our problems, to assure the House that, once the new Commission is established in Brussels, our requirements in Cornwall will be drawn to its attention.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Looking forward to 1985, it is not a bad thing also to look back. If we are glad to get away from here for a short break, I am sure that Ministers are equally glad to get away and even more glad to know that we are going away. I hope that if Ministers get anything from Father Christmas in their pillow cases, stockings or whatever, it will be better briefs to use when they get back.
The Government's greatest totem pole of the last Parliament was the money supply. In this Parliament it has become the public sector borrowing requirement. As a matter of fact, I do not go much on totem poles and I think that the Government might do better if they did a few things slightly differently. There is a strange paradox about getting older. One realises that although one is getting older and has less time, in politics there is plenty of time, but Governments seem not to recognise that. I believe that the Government may be in too big a hurry about some things.
Looking back over the five years or so since the Conservatives came to office, one recognises that the Government have done many things which needed to be done following the period of the Labour Government. They got inflation down and productivity up. With the exception of the miners' strike, they achieved a great reduction in the number of strikes and much better order in British industry. Government expenditure has decreased as a proportion of GNP and industry is more competitive.
All those things are splendid, but one or two things are not so good. First, unemployment is much too high. We must be realistic and understand that unemployment is also high in many other countries, but that does not alter the fact that we must reduce it here. Secondly, manufacturing industry has received a buffeting and too much manufacturing industry has gone out of business altogether. Furthermore, the cost of welfare and social


security arising out of unemployment has increased greatly and become an extremely severe imposition on the Treasury and the taxpayer.
I believe that some relaxation of control of the PSBR and some extra expenditure on construction and housing —I voted reluctantly in support of the Government in the previous debate tonight—would be a good thing. I do not want to pelt money at things. I just want a bit more to be made available. I do not believe that that would be catastrophic for the Government or the Treasury. However, I am told by my friends on the Treasury Bench — not least by the Prime Minister in answer to my question the other day—that there will not be any more money. On the contrary, the Government mean to stick to their policies and to the tightness of the PSBR, and not to give the support in the form of public money that I should welcome. They expect—they have said so—that, if the climate is right, British business and commerce will revive the economy, provide jobs and reduce unemployment without Government support.
Let us suppose that, by a strange mischance, I am wrong and the Prime Minister and the Government are right. At the moment, I am not sure that I am not right. However, let us suppose that I am wrong. One ingredient in the Prime Minister's strategy, which is absolutely vital to its success, is confidence about the future in industry and commerce. Confidence is vital if there is to be expansion and investment. Confidence is a very tender plant, and without it there can be no growth.
At the moment, industry and commerce are cautious, tentative and unadventurous. I am in business as well as being a Member of Parliament. I know that business men are thinking, "Things are all right, but we shall not push the boat out because we are not quite sure what will happen in the next year or so." Why is that? There may be several reasons, but one reason, of particular importance, is that we have had five years of turmoil, because there had to be five years of change. We have been working on the bad situation that the Labour Government left us, and trying to turn the state juggernaut round. To turn any juggernaut round in the middle of a motorway may seem to be the quicker option, but the wise and safer course is to take the juggernaut round by the slip roads. The distance is longer, but one will reach one's destination more quickly in the end.
Some of the turmoil of recent years could not have been avoided. As always, some of it arose from outside causes and was not the Government's fault. For example, the Government are in no way to blame for the miners' strike. It is entirely due to the refusal by the NUM and Mr. Scargill to do a deal. However, some of the aggro apparent in our society does stem from Government action. In the coming year, the Government must concentrate on less contentious legislation and try to create a more relaxed atmosphere. Industry and commerce cannot feel confident about their ability to advance in an atmosphere of political aggro, controversial legislation and dissention of various kinds. The Government and the Prime Minister will have to implement more slowly the programme that they believe to be necessary. I, too, believe that some of the Prime Minister's ideas are necessary. We must still continue to reverse some of the preceding trends, as we have been doing during the past five years. However, it is now necessary —indeed, vital—to slow the process down. Some of the Government's ideas should be left to the next Parliament. We need to win the election. The Prime

Minister's strategy of depending upon industry and commerce to solve our economic problems and provide jobs cannot be implemented if there is any uncertainty about confidence, or if, as at the moment, confidence is limited. There must be real confidence for the future, and only the Government can create it.
The country depends upon industry and commerce. I believe that the Government could provide a little more help.
But, even with the little more help for which I have asked, it would still be the responsibility of the free enterprise sector to provide success. I plead with the Leader of the House and his colleagues, during the next Session of Parliament, to bring in less contentious legislation and to avoid some of the traumas from which we have suffered during the past week and month. If we are to effect an improvement in the economy, the mood of the country must be got right, and the Government must seek to get it right.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Before the House adjourns, I seek assurances from the Leader of the House on two matters. The first is linked to early-day motion 243, which arose out of a trial in which sentence was delivered on Monday. On Monday, both the leading items on the 10 o'clock television news were about serious court cases following serious offences, both of which raise the same issue. The first was the case of Colin Evans who was convicted of offences against children and had been employed by Berkshire county council. The second case concerned the supply of drugs to young people by a Mr. Catherwood while he was employed as a supply teacher—the title is unfortunate—by the Inner London education authority.
My query relates to the work of several Departments of State. I hope that it will be appropriate for me to direct my remarks to the Leader of the House. How can we improve the situation for the parents and guardians of children and young people? It is clear that the present system is failing. Employers do not find out about highly relevant offences committed by employees who may then perpetrate similar offences against young people during the time of their employment.
At some stage Mr. Catherwood applied to ILEA for a job, but I accept that, at the time when he applied, the rule and the practice were different. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, there is now a duty for a declaration to be made. However, the system is entirely fallible. Those who have most to hide will declare that they have not committed offences. They will conceal their recorded offences from the eyes of the authorities.
We have to respect the privacy of the individual. It should not be a matter of public knowledge that people have committed offences, if the slate has been wiped clean. However, we must find a way of assuring parents, guardians and other responsible people that youngsters are not liable to be looked after by people who may be a grave risk to them. Is there a chance of the House examining this grave issue soon? I accept that we shall not do so this week, but perhaps we might have an opportunity soon after our return.
The first offence involved sexual offences and the murder of a child and the second involved the supply of LSD, cocaine and cannabis, and was committed in the borough that I represent. Such drugs were supplied at a


time of serious drug risk to young people. We should examine the law to establish how local authorities and other special employers can be guaranteed to know the track record of those whom they employ. In the Berkshire case, it appears that other employees knew about their colleague. While that in some way makes the occurrences far worse, it appears that ILEA did not know about the criminal drugs record of its employee at all. The present law is clearly inadequate if this can happen.
Early-day motion 156 relates to Crown post offices and sub-post offices, although it refers principally to the latter. It states:
"That this House views with concern the Post Office's campaign to close a number of urban sub-post offices; believes that it is becoming clear that the public consultation before closure is a sham; is concerned about the long-term structure of the Post Office network, both urban and rural; and calls upon the Government to allocate time to have this matter debated on the floor of the House in the near future."
In most parts of the country the Post Office is conducting consultations preceding the announcements to close sub and Crown post offices. The early-day motion asks for an opportunity to have a debate on the consultation procedure that the signatories, of whom I am one, regard as a sham.
I shall quote the example of my constituency because it illustrates the point clearly. We have two Crown post offices, both of which the local district postmaster proposes to close. They are the Bermondsey district office on the Old Kent road and the south-east district post office at 329 Borough high street. The post office at Borough high street has considerably more business than most other district or Crown offices in inner south-east London.
The Post Office Users National Council tells me that it cannot get involved in individual cases, so it is not an effective ally of the customer. The district postmaster has a duty to balance considerations of social need, which are widely drawn, commercial considerations and constraints imposed on the Post Office in its present form. The arguments are about priorities within a cash limit imposed by the Government. There is a major failing in the system which many of us do not accept when closures are announced at the same time as there are profit margins such as have been announced this week and when there is an overwhelming public demand from parents with young children, the handicapped and the elderly and from local commercial interests.
Some of the facts that the Post Office supplies about the time taken to be served and the number of counters open are also untrue. I can supply evidence to support that assertion in regard to the two offices that I have mentioned. Yet there is no possibility of any organisation asking the district postmaster to reconsider his decision, even when there might be a change in the area's economic circumstances. There might be an argument based on social need, but there might also be demographic change. The population in north Southwark is increasing after having declined for 10 years. Will the Leader of the House agree that there is a failure in the procedures as there exists no method for challenging decisions to close post offices? I hope that he will accede to my request soon. I am asking for an assurance today that we can debate this soon because there is not long before a final decision will be

made. The post offices will be closed and then it will be too late. The House should consider these issues before such decisions are made.

Mr. John Stokes: There are several subjects which ought to be debated before we adjourn. One is the televising of the proceedings of this House, which I hope will never come here in Trojan horse fashion from the other place. Another is the awful mess which I fear we might be getting into by giving emergency aid to many countries in Africa which, unfortunately, are often badly governed, as with Ethiopia. The long-term problems of feeding local populations will not just go away as a result of our sending emergency food and supplies. There are grave and difficult problems there. I hope that Britain and the Government do not feel any shame for the failures of Governments in Africa. Our part has been praiseworthy.
I do not apologise for saying that we should not adjourn until we have debated church affairs. I shall concentrate on that subject. I last mentioned the subject briefly on the Adjournment for the summer recess on 29 July 1982 at c. 1247 of the Official Report, following the controversy about the Falklands memorial service. Matters since that time have, unfortunately, got much worse. There was, of course, a time when ecclesiastical subjects were frequently debated in this Chamber, as in the 16th and 17th centuries, when most people believed that church and state should be one. I still believe that disestablishment would be a bad thing and damage the essential fabric of this old Christian nation. That is partly why I am so anxious about the state of the Church of England today.
The procedure for appointing bishops was changed a few years ago, so that now the two names which are presented to the Prime Minister are supposed to be widely supported after thorough consultation. The state has always had a say in the appointment of bishops since early Christian times, and rightly so. Whether the calibre of bishops has improved since the new procedure, it is difficult to say. A bishop used to emerge, rather like the leader of the Tory party, without any votes being taken. I believe that the new system needs to be looked at again. A democratic method is not always or necessarily the best method for top appointments in any walk of life.
There is much criticism of the bishops. Some of it, I agree, is unfair. Bishops still enjoy a position of considerable social and political influence in Britain. Some still live in palaces. I am glad that they do. Some still sit in the Lords, and I welcome them there too. However, they are in a position of great difficulty about speaking out on public affairs. If they speak they are accused of meddling in politics and if they do not speak people ask why the bishops are so silent. Nevertheless, bishops should be careful when making pronouncements outside their normal sphere of faith and morals. Furthermore, they cannot unfortunately speak from a position of great strength in their church where congregations are still falling, where clergy are few and diminishing and where, unfortunately, there is considerable discontent among the wives of the clergy.
We are now living in what in many ways is a heathen society, with great evils such as crimes of violence, divorce, rape and cruelty distressingly common. In my view, these are the first matters to which the bishops should turn their attention and on which they should speak


out and be heard regularly. Divorce has now become horrifyingly common, with appalling effects on the family and children. Surely there is hardly a subject in social affairs which is more urgent and critical, yet how often do we hear the bishops speak on this subject?
Their first concern should be their clergy and their flock. Instead, they are often tempted to deal with less immediate problems in people's daily life, such as the atom bomb or the affairs of the Third world. More than ever, the nation needs teaching about our Christian faith and Christian heritage, yet how often do we hear this from the bishops? It is not that I object to their views on political matters, which may be Left-wing or perhaps wishy-washy SDP, but these matters are secondary to the great questions which we must all ask about life and death, redemption and sin, death and resurrection. These are the matters on which ordinary people desperately need guidance—not things like nuclear disarmament.
Sometimes the bishops put themselves in a ridiculous position: as, for example, over the coal strike, where some of them appear to equate the coal board's stand—which with all its terms of pay and redundancy is extremely generous—and that of Mr. Scargill and the miners on the so-called picket lines. The failure of nearly all the bishops to condemn the violence of the strikers, both on the picket lines and against working miners' homes and families, is quite disgraceful.
I shall pass over as quickly as I can the much publicised appointment of the Bishop of Durham. In the good old days, one of his chief responsibilities was to keep out the Scots. Today he seems to be letting all kinds of heresies into his speeches, which trouble and worry the faithful. However clever he may be in an Oxford common room, he should surely be more careful in his public pronouncements. Looking out from his castle towards his glorious cathedral, he should ponder his heavy responsibilities. Many a clergyman would desire to be in that marvellous position.
I am also troubled about some of the activities of the General Synod, and I wish that its proceedings were more often debated here because I believe that many Back Benchers—more than those who are Anglicans—more truly represent the feelings of the man and woman in the pew than does the Synod. The Synod seems to have attracted the activists who do not necessarily represent ordinary church people.
The near destruction of the Book of Common Prayer in the Church of England is dreadful. I prophesied that this would happen when we debated these matters more than a decade ago and when—unfortunately, as I now see it —we approved the new services. Nowadays, one can find a prayer book service only in about one out of 12 parishes. I live half way between my constituency and Westminster, and I have had to scour parishes in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire to find a prayer book, Holy Communion or matins. Whenever the subject is mentioned by colleagues, great regret is expressed on all sides that we ever allowed the Church of England to do such a dreadful thing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that three members of the General Synod also sit in the House. I assure him that when this place turns down a proposal from the Synod, the Synod clearly takes notice. he can be reassured that even if we do not manage

adequately to represent all the views in this House, this House is near to the thoughts of the Synod more often than the hon. Gentleman might think.

Mr. Stokes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The General Synod has recently expressed its view on the introduction of women priests into the Church of England. I have no very strong views on that, although I would hesitate to support A. I would certainly counsel caution among my colleagues in the House.
The nation is undergoing a spiritual crisis. There is still a faint film of Christianity over this land, based largely on our past, traditions and character, but I fear that it is growing thinner. The enormous change in sexual morals is upsetting the institution of marriage on which our society depends. The rise in crimes of violence is terrifying. Even the old morality of honesty and fair dealing is dying, and in the City of London scandals have broken out which would have horrified our fathers.
People, particularly young people, are now longing for a lead and guidance. They want some benchmarks for their ordinary life. Discipline and respect are no longer what they were. We used to pride ourselves on the fact that England was a peaceful society. We prayed each week in the Book of Common Prayer that we should be "godly and quietly governed". These are the matters to which the bishops and clergy should turn their attention.

Mr. Tim Yeo: My brief experience in the House has taught me that this debate is always a fascinating occasion, and I particularly wish to single out the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), with which 1 totally concurred.
However, the subject I wish to raise concerns a constituent, Mr. Alan Russell, who, with three other Britons, is presently detained in Libya and has been since May this year. For the bulk of this period of more than seven months, the precise accusations against the four men have not been known. During this whole time their families have suffered great distress. The anguish and uncertainty that pervade the lives of those households as Christmas approaches deserve the sympathy and concern of this House, the Government and, indeed, the authorities in Libya.
I pay tribute to the fortitude of Mrs. Carol Russell and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Walters, who are also my constituents. Their unswerving determination to do everything in their power to secure the release of Alan Russell has been wholly admirable. I hope that I would have the same courage and strength if I were ever in that unfortunate position.
Mrs. Russell's plight has been made worse by the fact that her husband was employed by a Libyan company, and payment of his salary ceased some time ago. It is unfortunate that in those very exceptional circumstances, which by no means apply to all Britons held abroad, there is no source of Government aid to help families meet the cost of journeys to and from the countries in which their relatives are held. However, far more urgent than any financial consideration is the need to secure the release of Mr. Russell and the other detainees.
Mr. Russell's trial, on charges which carry very severe penalties, opened last week in Libya and was adjourned for one week until tomorrow to allow a longer time for his


defence to be prepared. We cannot tell what the outcome of that trial will be. I understand that a British representative in Libya will have access to the trial, and that is most welcome. However, whether we can have confidence in the outcome of the trial and whether it will be fairly conducted remains to be seen. I have no doubt that many people in this country and throughout the world will watch that process very closely.
I am particularly glad that the Archbishop of Canterbury's representative, Mr. Terry Waite, is paying a second visit to Libya. I hope that he will be able to bring comfort to the four men, whose morale, understandably, has been at a low level during a long period of uncertainty.
I should like to bring three points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. First, I urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to take every action they can to secure the release of Mr. Russell and the other three men. I recognise that throughout the last seven months efforts have been made behind the scenes. Indeed, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for the way in which he has kept in close contact with me and with the families of the detainees. However, a more public effort must now be made by the Government on behalf of those men. Commercial factors and the position and status of Libya within the international community are negotiating cards which could be used. Is it not possible for an envoy to be sent to Libya to seek the release of Mr. Russell and the other three detainees.
Secondly, Colonel Gaddafi can be assured of my belief that the immediate release of the detainees would produce an easing of relations between our two countries. That would be most welcome in Libya.
Thirdly, I wish to send a clear message to Mr. Alan Russell — that, as long as I am his Member of Parliament and free to speak in this House, his plight will not be forgotten, his case will not disappear from the political scene and I shall continue to urge the Government to act.
At Christmas time, when it is the privilege of probably all Members of Parliament and of most people in this country to be at home with their families, I ask the House and the Government to spare a thought for those poor families whose Christmas will be dominated by their separation from a loved one, a separation which, without action being taken by the Government, may last for very much longer than the Christmas recess for which the House will shortly and deservedly adjourn.

Mr. Ray Powell: May I say to the Leader of the House that I am not opposed to a Christmas recess. I look forward to spending some days with my wife, children and grandchildren. I look forward also to spending some time with my constituents; in particular, the miners who are on strike, and their wives and children.
We are to return here on 9 January. Why should we not return on Monday 7 January and use both Monday and Tuesday to consider the wide-ranging problems of the prolonged miners' dispute? If the House were to spend two days exclusively on this issue, we might find a solution to a problem which is causing great distress to miners and their families. There is also the financial implication that

the nation is forced to endure because of the intransigent attitude of the Prime Minister and her protege, Mr. Ian MacGregor, supported by her somewhat dried-out wet, the Secretary of State for Energy.
The financial implications are not my only concern. The nation will return to normality only when the violence, brutality, bullying and bitterness are brought to an end. There seems to be less chance of a settlement after 10 months than when the strike began. Both sides are losing financially. Internationally, both the miners and the nation suffer. Surely this Chamber can resolve the differences. It is for that reason that I am pleased to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to everybody—to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, other Ministers and Back Benchers—not to allow this dispute to continue. When one assembles and catalogues all the speeches that have been made and the questions that have been asked and answered since last March, one can only conclude that enough is enough and that the negotiations must begin again. Why not 7 and 8 January 1985?
Let me examine some of the reasons for the deadlock. The main contentious issue is the interpretation of what constitutes an economic pit. I have just read a document which was prepared by Andrew Glyn, fellow and tutor in economics at Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and an associate member of the Oxford university institute of economics and statistics. The document gives chapter and verse as to why the economic case put forward by the National Coal Board is totally false. Although the report was prepared by Andrew Glyn exclusively for the national Union of Mineworkers, the figures—the statistics and evidence presented — confirm the statement by Philip Bassett on 28 November in the Financial Times. It is undoubtedly sufficient to confirm the reasons for the refusal by the NUM to accept pit closures on grounds other than exhaustion or geology.
In my constituency, Wyndham Western colliery, which was closed on 7 January, employed 550 miners. It was the last pit in the Ogmore valley. Male unemployment in the Ogmore valley is now 24 per cent. There is very little prospect of further employment for the 550 miners who were pushed out of work. I wonder whether the evidence presented by the NCB's accountants on the economics of the Wyndham Western colliery was the reason for its closure.
Philip Bassett, on 28 November, in his Financial Times article—it is not often that we pray in aid that paper—says that six academic accountants carried out a study which enraged the NCB regarding the case for pit closures:
The study was led by Mr. David Cooper, Price Waterhouse professor of accounting and finance at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and included senior accountancy academics from Sheffield and Manchester universities and the Manchester Business School.
The Financial Times article stated that the report by the academic accountants said that careful scrutiny of the underlying accounting reports that identify pit profit and loss
produces the conclusion that they fail to form an adequate basis for informed management decisions".
The article states:
The authors give the specific example of the cost of coal at the Cottonwood pit in South Yorkshire—the proposed closure of which was one of the sparks which led to the present strikes.
They say that NCB figures show that in 1981–82, the pit lost £6·20 per tonne. But they suggest that if the fixed cost element then was approximately the same proportion of total costs as in 1984, then 23·1 per cent. of the unit cost of £50·5m would not


be avoided by the decision to close the pit — so that in 1981–82, Cortonwood would have contributed £5·50 profit per tonne to the NCB.
While not claiming this example to be definitive, they say it does indicate the difficulty of public debate on economic closures.
I should like to go into graphic detail about the document on the economic case against pit closures, but I will not delay the House. However, it is important for me to spell out what some of the sections include, so that if the House decides to have a one-day or two-day debate on the dispute, these matters can be resolved amicably. The 10 sections of the report demonstrate the difficulty of deciding what is an economic pit and what is an uneconomic pit. It considers the impact on the economy of lost coal production, the reduced production of mining investment in goods, reduced rail services, extra electricity costs and the reduced consumption of United Kingdom goods by miners' families, as well as losses to the miners, their families and children. In areas such as mine, there is also a loss to the whole community.
The document includes tables on the cumulative costs of closures in certain areas. It mentions the St. Johns colliery in Maestag and the Garw,' colliery in the Ogmore valley. Mention is also made of the Cwm Coedely colliery. Emlyn Williams and Terry Thomas of the south Wales NUM have told me that the NCB has repeatedly claimed that two of those three pits are uneconomic and should be closed. The board bases its arguments on its own accountancy assumptions, which need to be fully analysed before the NUM can consider further consultation on pit closures.
I toured my constituency last weekend and I know that the miners in Wales will not be forced, cajoled or starved back to work. Their wives back them and will ensure that the men do not go back if there is still a threat of colliery closures. The miners and their wives know that if the men go back and the axe falls on collieries in their small communities, there will be no alternative employment available.
As I said, we have 24 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency. If the St. Johns colliery, which employs 824 miners, is closed, unemployment in that community will escalate to 45 per cent.
The Observer on Sunday carried an article headed
No surrender in the valleys.
That article mentioned the Ridley report, which was leaked to The Economist, and said that many miners carried grubby photocopies of the report in The Economist in their pockets. That report was the Tory party study, drawn up in 1978, which mapped out the policy to dismantle the nationalised industries. It mentioned the "political threat" from the "enemies" of the next Tory Government.
The Observer report said:
The battleground should be chosen by the Government, it says, and it was likely to be the coal industry. The Government should prepare itself, the report says, by building up coal stocks at power stations, planning coal imports, encouraging haulage companies to recruit non-union drivers, and adapting all the power stations to burn oil as well as coal. As a deterrent, money should be cut off to the strikers and the union should be made to finance them. Finally, a large mobile force of police should be equipped to deal with the inevitable violent picketing. As the Economist predicted, little of the plan reached the Tory manifesto.
It has all, however, come true.
Even today, Norman Willis, the general secretary of the TUC, has suggested that the pit strike could go on for

years. What a frightening thought that is when we analyse the cost to the nation. What a frightening thought it is for me as an hon. Member who represents miners, their wives and families and who knows what hardship they are enduring.
For the reasons that I have listed, which have been confirmed by economic experts, I ask the House to reduce our Christmas recess by two days to discuss fully the dispute in the mining industry, with the one aim of amicably resolving this long-lasting, damaging and frustrating dispute.

Sir Paul Hawkins: I shall not be asking for the recess to be postponed. Indeed. I should like the longer recess to which we have become accustomed. If we had less legislation, we would have time for the debate that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) seeks and which I agree is long overdue.
I wish to draw attention to a matter that is important to the whole world. There is an extraordinary contrast between plenty in Europe and famine in Africa and elsewhere, yet the European Community is asking all farming communities in the EC to cut food production. That is crazy.
I recently attended a meeting in Europe at which experts forecast that large-scale famines will continue for the next 30 or 40 years. I understand that the desert is extending by at least 10 miles every year. Privately and through the Government, the European Community and humanitarian organisations, this country has been in the forefront of helping famine-stricken regions and we have also given help during other famines and disasters over the past 20 years.
However, we cannot go on working from hand to mouth. We ought to have a plan based on the facts and an expert understanding of the situation. I should like to urge the Government, along with our partners in the EC, to find out the real facts as to how long the famine conditions in Africa and, for that matter, in Bangladesh and elsewhere in future, are likely to last. They should then decide what important steps should be taken, and in what order. Should we go for providing water supplies or, perhaps, or planting forests? Indeed, I believe that much of the trouble with the desert conditions has been caused by the felling of forests throughout Africa. Perhaps we should be sending agricultural advisers to help people, to teach them to grow more food for themselves. That is an important aspect of the work that should be done.
We must carry out research into how the food that Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States can produce in abundance can be made palatable to Africans. Other than in extreme emergencies, it is not much good sending wheat to Africa, when Africans are used to eating maize. For that matter, it is not much use sending wheat to India when Indians prefer, and understand how to cook, other pulses, and so on.
Equally, it is important to be able to reduce the weight and bulk of food. The food sent in is often extremely bulky and that, in turn, greatly reduces the possibility of access to ports and of transportation. Ports are often primitive, and transport to the hinterland may be extremely limited and of poor quality.
The Government, together with our European partners, should look into those issues as a matter of urgency so that we can use the food that we could be growing here for the


rest of the world, and so that we can help those all over Africa and other parts of the world who are suffering from famine to obtain that food on a long-term basis. It is no use dealing with such famines on an ad hoc basis. Thus, I hope that during the coming months we shall hear of a plan to assist those famine areas on a long-term basis.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I came into the debate a few minutes late. Normally, I am pretty much on the ball. I was involved in speaking to some miners from Northumberland who are still on strike, but I shall deal with that later.
My first point is that I have been making some inquiries, and have found out that there has apparently been no call to hold a debate, instead of adjourning, on the VAT that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking from the record produced by Band Aid. I cannot believe it. Three weeks ago I came in here and asked a question fairly innocently about the Government sending that money to Ethiopia instead of shoving it into the Chancellor's chest. I think that the VAT amounts to 18p on every record. Those young people who made the record gave their services freely, but the money is being coined by this Tory Government while all the people mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) are starving in Ethiopia, the rest of Africa, central and south America, and elsewhere.
About a week later every man and his dog were on the radio. Every time I switched on the radio or television there was Dr. Death claiming that he wanted the VAT back. He was going to knock hell out of the Chancellor. Then there was the Liberal Chief Whip — [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Indeed, where are the Liberals tonight? Is there a joint selection meeting on? The SDP and Liberal Members are all missing. David Steel finished up on television. He wanted VAT. They were all going to go knocking on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's door. Now they have a wonderful opportunity to speak on the subject just before Christmas. But I imagine that they have all gone. They have started on a fact-finding tour of the Caribbean. That is where they have them in the winter. They have not got the nous to come in here to raise that subject.
Having started this whole business, I am making a final appeal. I call on the Leader of the House, who used to be an expert on financial matters—

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: He still is.

Mr. Skinner: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had got a fairly cushy number. In his job, he escapes all the facts and figures. He does not have to face all the brickbats that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the others have to face. He does not have to prop up the Secretary of State for the Environment. But as I have said, just before Christmas we are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay back that 18p on the millions of records that have been sold.
But having said that, I shall return to the subject of the miners. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and others have said, I believe that there should have been a debate on the mining industry during the past few weeks. One of the things that appals me is that we constantly hear Government spokesmen and

spokesmen for the coal board say on television that the miners do not want to do a deal. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the strike is not about money. It did not start because people were after increased wages. By and large, most strikes and industrial struggles are about wages and conditions. But this strike has nothing to do with that. It is the most honourable dispute to have taken place this century, because it is about saving jobs. Hon. Members should understand that.
With every year that has passed since I became a Member of Parliament, more jobs have been created in the House. There are more Members of Parliament now than when I first came here. There are also more people in the Press Gallery and more people to feed them. More people are employed all over the building. I am not complaining, but the House is one of the most uneconomic units in Britain. If the Prime Minister's philosophy of profit or die was applied to the House, it would have to close down. After all, the canteens do not make a profit. They had to have a massive write-off not so long ago. Carpets were put down at £24 a square yard. If the Grantham grocer's shop mentality had been applied to this House and to the other place, the reserves would have been exhausted years ago and both Houses would have shut.
With 4 million to 5 million people out of work—according to how often the figures have been massaged — we are saying that the miners are trying to stop another massive addition to unemployment. When the strike began it was not about what some newspapers would describe as greed and materialism, as most strikes are portrayed in the Tory press; it was about trying to keep people in work. That is an honourable cause to support.
The NUM has not put a single demand on the table. It has not asked for anything. It has never been to the coal board to say, "By the way, this is our demand. We are going to strike if you do not give in." That is not what the strike is about. The strike came about because the NCB said, "We are fed up with 'Plan for Coal'. We want to get rid of it. We are going to close 20 pits and get rid of 20,000 jobs, and if we get away with that, we shall close 70 pits and get rid of 70,000 jobs."
The NCB says, as the Government often do, that Arthur Scargill has not budged an inch, but how can he? We have not asked for anything. We have not asked for a 10 per cent. increase, so no one can ask why we do not compromise on 7 per cent. The argument is about jobs.
If the miners in south Wales—one of the peripheral coalfields—go back to work, they know that half the coalfield will go down. Towards the end of the century, there will probably not be a pit left in south Wales. One reason why the south Wales miners have been the strongest in the strike is that they can see mass unemployment, such as they have had to face for decades, facing them now. They do not want to stand any more of it.
Therefore, I hope that the people will understand that we cannot move, because we did not start the strike. We have nothing to move on. We did not ask the coal board for a single thing from 6 May throughout the strike.
I want to put forward another argument in this short debate. The miners are not engaged in any special pleading. In every statement they make, the Government give the impression—the Tory press, the BBC and ITV follow them, gladly it seems—that the miners and the NUM want something that no other industry has. In other words, they say that the industry must be economic; that it must make a profit or go under.
I have just mentioned the Houses of Parliament—an uneconomic unit. "Uneconomic" applies to nearly every industry in Britain. Take farms. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) has just put forward a plausible argument suggesting that it would make sense —economic sense, really—for the world to produce as much food as we possibly can and of the right kind. We could then shovel it across to Africa and all those other places where the poor kids are starving. As a principle, I do not argue with that philosophy. I would argue whether it has to be done under the aegis of the Common Market, but I believe that the argument is sound. I believe that Britain should produce enough food to cut down the import of food. That is a good argument as well. Therefore, I am not complaining about the overall strategy of subsidising uneconomic farms in Britain.

Mr. Andy Stewart: There are none.

Mr. Skinner: According to the think tank report, which the hon. Gentleman supports—he can go to the Library and get the report; it is dated November 1983—the Government will be financing farms to the tune of £1,000 million throughout this financial year. With the CAP payments on top, that comes to the equivalent of an average of £20,000 for every farmer in the land.
On top of that, because we have some even more uneconomic farms called hill farms, especially in Wales and such places, the Government sensibly say — all Governments have done it—that it makes sense to give those farms where the terrain is difficult to develop, more money. So on top of that they get another £200 million called the hill farming subsidy. Nobody argues about that. It went through the House on the nod during the miners' strike.
If the miners were treated like the farmers—taking into account the reports from Andrew Glyn and the other five accountants — there would not be a single uneconomic pit in Britain. That is the truth of the matter.
The miners are not asking for anything special. We are just saying: do not treat us as well as the farmers but go half or a quarter of the way, and every mine in Britain would be profitable.
Let me make a comparison with the Japanese car company, Nissan. The Government have given £200 million to Nissan because it would not come to Britain and employ people unless they did give that money. That company will employ a maximum of 500 people in the north-east. That is equivalent to a £400,000 subsidy for each job. Arthur Scargill and the NUM are not asking for that kind of money. They do not want £400,000 for every employee in the NCB. They will settle for a small proportion of that. Hon. Gentlemen cannot talk about special pleading, because we are not asking for as much as the Government have handed over to that so-called super-efficient Japanese car company, which is destined to smash British Leyland.
I shall compare the miners with the British Broadcasting Corporation. Every BBC unit of production is uneconomic. The BBC has no super-pits as the miners have. If all the radio stations that have sprung up in the past decade had to live or die according to the philosophy, under which the Prime Minister say pits must operate, every one would close. The same is true of large sections of British industry.
I hear solicitors say, "I wouldn't support the miners' strike. Every single miner is living off the back of the

taxpayer." When people tell me that the mines should make a profit or be closed, I ask them where they work. Nine times out of ten they work in an industry that receives a massive subsidy from the Government or which is fiddling the books, either in a fashion that is allowed by the law or in some other ways, such as fiddling tax and capital allowances. None of the advanced factories have been built by an entrepreneur who is carrying out the Prime Minister's philosophy of "make a profit or go under"; they have been built by taxpayers. How are they filled with equipment? Money for that also comes from taxpayers. Taxpayers subsidise those factories up to the hilt. That applies throughout the British economy.
Every multiple store that uses cheap labour under the youth training scheme is subsidised. The £25 a week is paid for by taxpayers. The miners are not asking for as much as that. They do not want to be treated as well as that. We are not pleading a special case.
Most ironic is the fact that the so-called super-efficient oil industry is also receiving taxpayers' money. That is according to The Daily Telegraph of today. Most people imagine that oil companies can manage well, but, they have now run into difficult strata underground, just as we do in pits. Because some pits in south Wales are more difficult to mine, it costs more to extract the coal The oil companies started with big economic pools of oil and have now drained most of them. The Daily Telegraph states that there is a rush for North sea oil licences. It continues:
Companies have been encouraged by the tax incentives aimed at encouraging offshore development, and the Government's anxiety to see the development of the smaller finds now accounting for most of the discoveries and the start of exploration of deeper waters.
That is exactly the problem of the so-called uneconomic pits. We have deep pits with small, narrow seams, but because the oil company is primarily in the private sector, it will get tax handouts to develop small, uneconomic pools of oil.
There is hardly a segment of the British economy that is not subsidised to some extent. Therefore, the miners are not receiving anything extra from the Government. Perhaps the most important and easiest comparison is with the Common Market. I know that the Leader of the House does not like it. On many occasions we trooped through the Lobbies against it in 1971 and 1972. I think we voted 36 times out of 36.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I voted more often than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: No, I was there every time. I did not miss one vote, nor did the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I am still opposed to the Common Market. The Common Market is up to its neck in debt. If the Government applied the same rule of thumb to the Common Market as they do to the mines, it would have been closed yesterday.
This autumn, the Common Market asked for more money from Britain and the other countries. The Community treats us with contempt. During the past few days, a couple of Common Market commissioners, because they are so contemptuous of the way they operate and because they have mechanisms that allow them to do what they wish, were promoted to vice-president for three weeks to increase their pensions by £2,500 a year. Yet the Government talk about mines having to make a profit


The most startling example of the Government's double standards was mentioned in the House on Monday. A gold bullion mine, Johnson Matthey Bankers, discovered that it reserves were exhausted in the last few days of September, yet it traded when it knew that it was insolvent. The Government decided to prop it up to the tune of £75 million so that their friends in the City could stay in business—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Rubbish.

Mr. Skinner: It is not rubbish. I remember the night —30 September—when 200 people were brought to the Bank of England in Threadneedle street. There was no ballot. They did not bring in all the investors, and some of them were not even contacted by telephone. It was the most undemocratic procedure that has been carried out in the City, although it has seen a few in its time. Those 200 square briefcases went to the Bank of England to concoct a deal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by a nod and a wink, had said they could, to patch up the bank. It could not be allowed to fail because others would have fallen like dominoes. They have managed to hold it together since with taxpayers' money.
That is why we should have a debate on the miners before the recess. It will save money. There has been much talk about the public sector borrowing requirement. There is always one totem pole that must be saved. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, we have had to have wage restrictions to stop the value of the pound increasing; we have had incomes policies to stop the pound decreasing in value; and the same is true now of the PSBR.
Contrary to what the press and the media say, at the last ACAS meeting the members of the NUM executive said, "We will accept the final suggestion from ACAS." The media give the impression that the NUM turned down that proposal. That is a lie. Scargill, Heathfield and McGahey agreed to the last ACAS proposal. In Wales and the peripheral areas, where the miners know that there will be massive closures if MacGregor and the Prime Minister get their way, they will stay out and fight.
The Government have had some luck during the past 40 weeks. They have had to settle many pay claims from other trade unions because they do not want two major industrial disputes at the same time. But that will not continue for ever. I hope that they realise that, as the new pay rounds go through, there will be further industrial action on different fronts. They will not give in constantly. NACODS has turned down the first offer of 5·2 per cent., and I am encouraging that union to fight until it obtains a better deal and to take action if necessary. The Government will not be able to buy off those unions for ever.
I am confident that if the miners of Wales, Scotland and all the British coalfields, including Yorkshire, stand their ground, we can win this battle. But it is a scandal that the British taxpayer has been asked to pay £5,000 million to back the Prime Minister in a war of attrition against the miners. That represents £100 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is what everyone has paid until now to finance a strike that was started by the Government and by MacGregor. However, provided that we can maintain our resolve and determination, we shall win the fight.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the House rises for the Christmas recess, it should have the opportunity to address itself to a number of issues connected with certain national services provided for our constituents. If this proves . not to be possible during Advent, perhaps, after Epiphany, parliamentary time could be found to advantage.
On the Order Paper, in my name, is early-day motion 208 on the future of the pharmaceutical industry. This would provide a chance for wide-ranging discussions not only on the National Health Service, but on the contribution of drug manufacturers to the medical requirements of our citizens. My motion states:
That this House, while recognising the need for value for money in the National Health Service and the possible role that generic drug substitution may have in achieving this, nevertheless urges Her Majesty's Government to give fullest consideration to the consequences of mandatory prescribing for the current and future strength and success of the pharmaceutical industry and of companies such as Roche, both in terms of ability to engage in continuing research and development and of satisfying the requirements of patient care.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will immediately recall that Roche is a major employer in my constituency, as are other companies such as Smith, Kline and French, and that the pharmaceutical industry is an important contributor to the health—in more ways than one—of Hertfordshire. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the need for a consultation process over such a fundamental change in NHS policy, and I trust that the concerns expressed by Roche and its employees, together with those of the medical profession, will be given the attention that they undoubtedly deserve.
A further aspect of the NHS, and the subject of current parliamentary questions from me, is the planned development of the Welfield site in Hatfield for the expansion of geriatric and other patient care by the health authority. The recognition of the increased needs of the elderly in mid-Hertfordshire is very much to be applauded, and has been advocated by me and relevant individuals and organisations for the past five years or more. It is firmly to be hoped that the forthcoming inquiry will ensure the go-ahead for this much needed additional facility.
Other national services that are constantly the subject of the concern and scrutiny of my constituents are those that provide many of the public utilities—in particular, gas, electricity, telephone and water. On the latter, I am especially gratified that, after I have campaigned since my election to Parliament for the greater availability of water meters, the Government recently responded in this House by announcing a joint study between the water industry and the Department of the Environment on the possible extension of water metering generally to households.
Also on the Order Paper in my name is a private Member's Bill, the Standing Charges (Abolition) Bill, which is awaiting a Second Reading debate. This too would provide a chance for a wide-ranging discussion not only of the public utilities, but of the unfairness of the creation, in effect, of another tax without recognition of the ability to pay or of the level of consumption. My Bill seeks to abolish the levying of public utility standing charges.
My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, be aware that a typical family pays almost £3 a week in standing charges for gas, electricity, telephone and water before enjoying


the benefit of any of those facilities. The net result is to impose a flat rate burden, which often falls most heavily on those least able to bear it.
Although the possible consequences of my measure would be a rise in the price of units used, it has been estimated that nearly two thirds of consumers would be better off by such a fairer system. If one considers the case of the elderly, an even greater number of them would gain from such a change, and this would be of special value in Welwyn/Hatfield, which has a growing pensioner population especially anxious about the cost of such services, on which it is increasingly dependent.
If I recognise the limitations on the time available before the House rises for the coming recess for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I am certain that he will appreciate that this is a sign of yuletide goodwill to all men. However, may I encourage him during the 12 days of Christmas, to find a moment to reflect and make a new year's resolution to provide the opportunities that I have shown, albeit briefly, are needed?

Mr. David Amess: Before the House rises for the Christmas recess I hope that it will seize the opportunity at its disposal to save life. Shortly after being elected to this place I was extremely disappointed when the House had an opportunity to save life but voted against the restoration of capital punishment. Because of its failure to act, murder as a crime goes unchecked and has, indeed, increased.
Another type of murder is committed thoughout the world, and especially in Britain — abortion. A few weeks ago, I saw a film called "The Silent Scream" and witnessed the calculated destruction of a human being and the dismemberment and the extraction of an unborn baby from its mother's womb. I saw abortion take place, and the ultrasound film gave me an inside view of what happens during that operation. What a contrast it was to the delight I experienced early this year when my wife gave birth to our first child, and I had the joy of understanding a little of the miracle of life.
The author of "The Silent Scream", Dr. Bernard Nathanson, used to run the biggest abortion clinic in the world and between 1968 and 1978 presided over 100,000 abortions. Today, Dr. Nathanson no longer campaigns for abortion but instead condemns it. He now believes that human life before birth is human life and that abortion destroys human babies. Thanks to the work of the three scientists and Nobel prize winners, Crick, Howell and Watson we now know that at conception something completely new is created, which can be traced from then on in an unbroken line of form and substance through birth, development and adulthood. Everything that a human individual will be is present in the first cell that is created by the fusion of the male sperm and the female ovum. Left in the correct environment, the early human being will grow and develop. By 11 weeks, the foetus is clearly recognisable as a human baby. A baby at that stage of gestation was aborted in Dr. Nathanson's ultrasound film.
The science of foetology has given us a wealth of information about unborn human life, yet we still question the validity of those babies. No one doubted the humanity of Louise Brown when she was created in vitro, and scientists witnessed the beginning of new life. We question human life only when it is unwanted and

inconvenient and the decision is made to abort it. However, we cannot pick and choose about human life and say who is human and who is not. In 1983, we destroyed more than 171,000 babies by abortion in Britain. Numerous women have been profoundly physically and emotionally scarred by abortion.
Abortion is not always a safe or simple operation. The fact that abortion is legal does not make it safe. In May 1980, Dr. Robert Winston of London's Hammersmith hospital said:
Abortion, even done by the best hands, can lead to infection of the tubes and ultimately infertility.
There are those who fear that we shall return to hack street abortions if there is any restriction on current legislation, yet, in countries where there has been a tightening of the abortion laws there has not been an increase in abortion deaths.
Abortion is not the great panacea for all social ills. A liberal abortion law has not fulfilled the promise of the slogan, "Every child a wanted child". According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the number of children physically injured by their parents rose by almost 50 per cent. in the three years to 1982. Many aspects of the Warnock report have been profoundly disturbing to people throughout the country, so I am delighted that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is to introduce a private Member's Bill concerning one aspect of the report. However, I feel that the Government should take urgent action, especially on the whole issue of abortion.
I would not wish to go into gory details, but the instrument the abortionist uses enters the womb and the baby rears away in anguish. As the instrument moves towards the child, it can clearly be seen to open its mouth in terror; so the title "The Silent Scream" is not used for dramatic effect. I challenge every hon. Member to see the film, remain unmoved by it and still be prepared to be a party to the murder of the innocent. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: In this Session we have had considerable debate about certain aspects of the public and private sectors. There is, of course, a third vitally important sector— the charitable and voluntary sector—about which we have had little discussion. The House should have a debate on that before it adjourns for the Christmas recess.
There is a wide range of subjects which at the moment are sources of anxiety and which, if dealt with piecemeal, will have an unsatisfactory conclusion. There is considerable anxiety about the role of the Charity Commission. Set up in the middle of the 19th century as a branch of the High Court, the Charity Commission has a large staff, but everyone says that the commission is incapable of carrying out the job for which it is intended because it has inappropriate and insufficient staff. That must be a matter of anxiety.
In the summer there was a short debate on a private Member's motion, during which the Home Office Minister with responsibility for charities admitted that he was anxious about charity fund raisers and the way in which they can often take a disproportionately large share of the money that they raise. There have been disturbing examples—fortunately, few and far between—of people who raise money dishonestly for charity or claim to be


raising money for charity when they are not. My right hon. Friend the Minister promised to study the matter seriously. It would be good if some evidence of that scrutiny were to be forthcoming.
It is possible to change some of the ways in which charities are financed. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware, not long ago a group of hon. Members produced a pamphlet which contained some suggestions that deserve a response from the Government.
An important question is: what will happen to charities and charitable funding—in this I include the voluntary organisations, some of which are not charities—when the metropolitan counties and the GLC are abolished? I have no doubt that they will have a prosperous and useful future. In their dying stages, the GLC and metropolitan counties have taken enormous pains to finance a wide range of voluntary organisations and charities so that they may widen their constituency base. When those organisations have disappeared, are the Government confident that they can ensure that a great deal of the work that is being carried out will be continued successfully?
I should declare an interest as a trustee of Community Service Volunteers. In that organisation, and in a great many others, it has been well demonstrated that it can be cost effective to deploy volunteers on socially acceptable and useful work which costs considerably less than some of the Manpower Services Commission's schemes and with results that bear comparison with them.
I should like my right hon. Friend in his reply to address himself to the fact that each time we go to the Government with a suggestion about expanding the work that is being done by the organisations I have described, we are often unsuccessful, even when the case seems to be unanswerable.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Before we adjourn for the Christmas recess I wish to talk about road safety, especially drinking and driving. I am particularly concerned about the Government's campaign to "Keep low", which seems to suggest that we should not drink too much before we drive. That is unacceptable. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport has made it clear that she is against drinking and then driving but, unfortunately, the campaign message does not give that impression. I remain concerned, even now, that one should not drink and drive.
I am concerned also that so many accidents occur on stretches of motorway that are unlit. Recently and tragically, 10 people lost their lives on the M25. That happened on one day last week when there was thick fog. I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry, but I maintain and submit that if the M25 had been properly lit throughout its length, with the warning signals working and speed limits being adhered to strictly, there might have been a different result. With the Lion Intoximeter 3000 breathalyser working properly, or an alternative breathalyser, perhaps some of those who might have been tempted to have a little too much to drink, or who should not have been on the roads at the time, would have taken notice of the prevailing conditions and slowed down, or stopped driving altogether.
There are 1,688 miles of motorway in England and Wales and only 338 miles are illuminated. It seems

obvious that if the remaining stretches were illuminated there would be a safer system and lives would be saved. In a written answer to me on 12 December it was estimated that the cost of lighting the remaining unlit stretches of Britain's motorways would be £90 million. Running costs would be £9 million. When the M25 is completed, an additional £7 million would enable it to be fully illuminated. Having a Leicester constituency, I travel on the M1 frequently, and it seems that it would cost £9 million to illuminate the stretches which are presently dark.
Speaking of the M1 and Leicester, I should say that I shall not be taking part in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill which will be initiated by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), but I can assure the House that I remain totally in favour of rate capping and against any campaign by Leicester city council to oppose it. I shall continue to fight for my constituents, who I know support the idea that the rates will be much fairer with rate capping.
Each night-time fatal accident on our motorways in 1983 cost £205,460. With 206 people on average being killed each year on our motorways, we would be saving money by ensuring that lights were provided along all stretches of motorway.
I shall resume my place as I know that others wish to speak. However, I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House devotes a part of what I know will be an excellent speech to the state of safety on Britain's roads.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I do not think that the House should adjourn for the Christmas recess until, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have argued, it has fully debated the miners' strike and the Government's attack on the National Union of Mineworkers.
The Conservative party's attack on the NUM started before the beginning of the_dispute which has continued for 10 months. It goes back to a report which was prepared by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who is now the Secretary of State for Transport. That document was commonly called the Ridley report, and it was leaked in 1978 to The Economist. It showed that the then Conservative Opposition were preparing to attack what they regarded as the main political enemies of a future Tory Government. Those enemies were, of course, trade unions such as the NUM which would refuse to sacrifice jobs and communities at the command of a Conservative Prime Minister and Cabinet.
In such a debate, we should get to grips with the argument that is advanced by the occupants of the Government Front Bench that the miners' dispute started on 6 March when Ian MacGregor of the National Coal Board tried to save the country £135 million of uneconomic spending on the coal industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has said, the Government have wasted nearly £5,000 million, 37 times more than the stated target of the original savings when the dispute began. Had the dispute not taken place, there could have been a £25 a week increase for every registered unemployed person. There could have been a £4 a week decrease in the taxes paid by every working person. I am sure that that would have gained wide support throughout


Britain. It is nothing to do with economic or uneconomic pits. The coal board's losses have been adequately torn to bits by reports such as that of Dr. Andrew Glyn of Oxford university.
When I was lucky enough to intervene in the debate about a fortnight ago on the orders for increasing the subvention to the coal industry, I told the Minister that the coal board had to pay interest back to the Government, pensions to retired mineworkers and compensation for subsidence of people's houses, especially in the Nottinghamshire and Mansfield area, caused by pits that might have closed down some years ago. I said that those costs still had to be borne by the industry even if every pit were closed. When I said that those costs as a whole should be borne by the Government, the Minister said that that was not economic sense, and that every business had to bear such costs. If we could remove such things from the coal board's accounts, Cortonwood would be making a profit of £6 per tonne of coal and the industry as a whole would be making a profit. The argument has nowt to do with economic or uneconomic pits. That should be brought out in a debate.
What should also be brought out in a debate on the coal strike and its ramifications is the way in which the Government have been prepared since the mid-1970s to try to take on and destroy the trade union movement, with its ability to protect working people. They thought, in the words of Lord Stockton, that if the brigade of guards of the working class, the NUM, could be cracked first, other workers would be demoralised and despair, and would not stand up and fight.
Two years ago, in what was probably one of the best years for British capitalism for some time, 30 to 40 per cent. of the capacity of major industries such as chemicals, engineering, construction and glass, was laid waste and idle. In the timber and furniture industry, 52 per cent. of the capacity could not be used. The situation has worsened since then and is getting worse under the Government, in the 1980s. The Government are worried about resistance to future massive redundancies, so they want to demoralise the trade unions. It is nowt to do with the tonnes of coal coming out of the ground; it is about destroying the capacity of the trade union movement to fight against the Tory Government.
We should debate that matter before anyone in the House goes home for a couple of weeks' holiday over Christmas while hundreds of thousands of miners and their families suffer. The House should debate the miners' strike rather than adjourn.

Mr. Peter Shore: We have had the expected but nevertheless welcome series of short and serious speeches that are a feature of these three-hour Adjournment debates. No fewer than 18 hon. Members have raised matters of great concern not only to them and their constituents, but to the House and country. The Leader of the House will have his time cut out to answer them all intelligently.
When we debated the summer recess, the Opposition amended the motion because they did not think it right that hon. Members should be away and unable to influence Government policy for some 13 weeks while the miners' strike continued. It is with dismay and foreboding—a sentiment echoed and amplified by my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for Bolsover (Mr.

Skinner) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)— that one has to record the fact that the strike, which began over nine months ago, is still proceeding and we still await the first Government intervention to help to achieve its solution.
Nevertheless, the short break of less than three weeks between 21 December and 9 January is not open to the objections of the summer, and we shall accept the Adjournment motion, although with reservations, in the hope and expectation that we shall have replies to the points raised in the debate.
Many specific questions and grievances were raised today that I would wish to echo and reinforce. I refer, first, to the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who brought up the tragic case of the post-Christmas deportation of a Cypriot family in his constituency who have been here for more than 10 years. Indeed, the eldest of Mrs. Halil's three children is 11 years old and was born in the United Kingdom. I had always thought that, in administering the Immigration Act, the Government's general policy was to give more favourable consideration to those who have been in the country for more than 10 years, particularly those who came here before 1 January 1973 when the new Act came into effect. I hope that the Leader of the House will deal with the various points raised and tell us that he has been able to give new and favourable consideration to that particular case.
The second matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), and I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider it extremely carefully. It is wrong that no opportunity has been given and none will be given for the House to debate the important issue of the introduction of fees for entry certificates. It is even more astonishing that the order, which has apparently been laid today and is due to take effect from 1 January when the House is in recess, has escaped scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which met yesterday and which will not have the opportunity to consider the order before it comes into force. It is entirely wrong for Foreign Office Ministers to table an order before that Committee has had the chance to scrutinise it.
The third matter was raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Post office closures affect most of us, and especially those who represent inner city constituencies. The only reason for closures on the scale contemplated is that the Post Office, which is not making any overall loss, has been required in the forthcoming year, under its so-called external financing limit, to make a net contribution to the Treasury of no less than £70 million in addition to all its normal costs and the servicing of its obligations. That is what is putting the pressure on post office services which are especially important in inner city areas and in communities in which a large number of people do not use banks and are heavy users of the various services of the Department of Health and Social Security which are administered through post offices. In many areas, pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed and women with small children will be seriously affected if their local post offices are closed.
In addition to those specific matters, I hope that the Leader of the House will address himself to two main issues. The first is the growing national concern about unemployment which has been reflected in so many


speeches today. The seriousness of the problem and the remorseless way in which the numbers have increased is reflected in the pre-Christmas count taken each November for the period of Conservative rule. The figures are 1,259,000 in 1979; 2,016,000 in 1980; 2,770,000 in 1981; 3,063,000 in 1982; 3,084,000 in 1983; and 3,223,000 in November 1984. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Markerfield(Mr. McGuire) pointed out, the underlying trend is still an increase of about 20,000 per month. Moreover, the figures that I have given understate the true extent of unemployment. What is so dismally impressive about those figures is that they have grown larger every year. We are now in the sixth year of the Prime Minister's experiment and there is no sign of the number ceasing to grow, let alone of any reduction in the appalling total.
In 1984 the country has finally begun to wake up to the reality and the cost of what has happened to it. Conservative Members have at last begun to understand that, far from being a temporary expedient in consequence of policies designed to defeat inflation and to create more so-called real jobs, unemployment is endemic in the Government's whole monetarist and deflationary strategy. Many members of the Conservative party now seem to be uneasy about their Government's core policies. We hope to see the effects of that unease as the Session proceeds, not just in revolts on local government capital expenditure, such as there have been and will be, but in a changing attitude towards the role of government and the provision of community and social services generally.
I must also mention the tragedy of drought, hunger and famine not only in Ethiopia, but in vast and growing areas of the African continent. There is a clamant need for immediate action for relief. The British people expect such action from their Government. That is why — as my hon. friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned—they do not understand why the Government have failed to make their own contribution in terms of VAT to the moneys raised by the Band Aid record.
The problem is long-term and deep-seated. There has been plenty of warning. In September 1984 the World Bank, in its third report on sub-Saharan Africa, stated:
The spectre of disaster… confronts Africa and the international community.
It is estimated that the famine in Africa threatens some 35 million people. The Christian West, with its food stores bulging with surplus grain, and other products has a duty to assist, but it has shown little recognition of the scale of the problem, its likely duration or the suffering involved.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) had his own agricultural interests in mind, but he made a strong point when he said that what was needed was a longer-term plan to enable us to assist a continent which is in dire difficulties and will continue to face problems for many years. I hope that the Leader of the House will at least have something encouraging to say on that matter.

The Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): First, I thank the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for endorsing the adjournment motion. He did so in a

somewhat fastifious fashion, but in these difficult times the Treasury Bench is happy to receive support on any basis.
The right hon. Gentleman made some pertinent points. I hope that he will not think me dismissive if I try to contain them within my review of the debate as a whole. About 20 speeches have been made this evening and if I am to cover them all I shall be under a constraint in terms of time.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who opened the debate, put with great force the case for Mrs. Halil. I shall refer the matter to the Home Office again. However, I should place on record the fact that, as recently as 1981, Mrs. Halil was deported after her case had been fully considered not only by the immigration appellate authorities, but also by the House of Lords, and that she defied that order by returning illegally, using another name.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) told us about the problems of the farm college in his county. We all hope for a successful and commonsense resolution of the difficulty. I will draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to my hon. Friend's belief that an initiative to the new European Commission could prove valuable. Incidentally, we were all transfixed by the revelation that Cornwall has the finest pasture land in the United Kingdom. Clearly that fact is reflected in the margins of dairy farmers in that part of the country, and we will bear it in mind when—as seems regularly to happen—there is another peasants' revolt in the south-west.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) referred to the sad fate of Mr. Alan Russell, who is now languishing in gaol in Libya. My hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that the Minister of State. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was on the Front Bench to hear his comments. I hope that he will take comfort from that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who has explained why he has to be absent, ran a trailer for the debate which will take place later today on the television licence fee. I enjoyed my hon. Friend's trenchant comments. Mercifully I am not required to endorse his strictures on the BBC. Nevertheless, he set out what must be the real anxieties. The debate concerns the licence fee charge and the core services of the BBC which should be covered by such a charge, which is regressive in its impact. There is a constructive debate to be had on that matter.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) opened the topical issue of unemployment, to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) also contributed on this topic. I accept that this will be a continuing and major feature of political debate in the House as the Session proceeds into 1985. I should like to make just one contribution in the dying days of December. The training programme, which is running at £2 billion a year, and the great emphasis on improving the quality of the youth training scheme are an integral part of the campaign to provide a better pattern of employment. Much will turn on the mobility of our society and its response to the sharp economic challenge, which is wholly unavoidable for a nation with such a maritime and overseas trading tradition. Our ability to respond to such


a challenge, which is the opposite of what is promulgated in terms of a protectionist resolution of the coal dispute, will be at the heart of the public debate of this matter.
I should like now to deal with the important issue of fees for entry certificates. I fear that the fox on which I was relying was well and truly shot, because I understand that the hon. Member for Bradford. West (Mr. Madden) is not proceeding with the plan for a debate on this issue tonight. I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman has pursued this matter. As he said, he has raised three points of order which have been conducted with not uncommon for him but nevertheless uncommon courtesy in these times. I shall of course refer what he said to the Foreign Office. I entirely understand that his anxieties are held with great conviction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) brought a note of philosophy to our proceedings. I do not believe in the politics of crusade. Crusades are all right for a while but then one has to change gear. The consolidation that follows a crusade begins to anchor a new climate in which politics are debated and in which social democracy gradually replaces the more exotic forms of Socialism which adorn the Opposition Front Bench—although not at the moment. My hon. Friend and I are at one in believing that we have a greater task in this than perpetual revolution. However, it was a little unnecessary for him to bring an echo of our previous debate into this one. I thought that all passion had been spent. He said that his vote had been cast with the utmost reluctance and reservation. I must inform him that the Whips Office, I suspect rather like the England changing room, goes on the homely philosophy that they all look the same on the score board.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised important issues concerning the Post Office, which I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and fearful cases of recent crime. The collection of central records is always a delicate issue and for someone who sits the Bench that he occupies, it must be especially delicate. He will appreciate, therefore, that this is an issue on which we must try to have a reflective rather than an instant response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) made some pertinent comments on the present qualities of the Church of England. I do not think that there is any requirement of me other than to note them, but I cannot resist the temptation to say that I have a lively sympathy with what he argued. It is perfectly proper for the Church to take a lively interest in contemporary social, economic and, perhaps, political matters. However, in the 18th century, when the Church became so other-worldly, it was quite unable to identify the spiritual poverty which brought forth the Methodist revival. There is a spiritual challenge, which can easily be overlooked, if the Church concentrates too heavily on other dimensions of its natural work.
The coal industry dispute was featured by the hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Coventry. South-East (Mr. Nellist). There can be a considerable diversion into matters of accountancy, but I suspect that charges of faulty

accountancy will not long outface the basic fact that at present a subsidy of £1,300 million annually is being paid to the coal industry.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have an obligation to the House.
There are sound arguments for the economic concentration of the coal industry around those areas where it can perform to greatest effect. We have experienced this in respect of textiles, engineering, shipbuilding and footwear. It is simply quite untrue to say that we can insulate the coal industry from these other factors.
The hon. Member for Bolsover, whose contributions did not suffer from any understatement, feels a certain anxiety. But the strategems of the Government are not undermining his position. It is the action of one third of the coal miners who are still at work aided particularly by the 16,500 who have returned in recent weeks. They are also aided by those, predominantly trade unionists, engaged in the movement of coal, those engaged in the unloading of record shipments of imported coal and those at the power stations undertaking coalburn. The organised industrial class is undermining the position of the hon. Member for Bolsover, and although I am happy for those skills to be visited on the Government, I must tell him that is how it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) referred to the problems in the pharmaceutical industry. My heart has other causes to which it warms more immediately, but none the less this is an important issue to my hon. Friend, who has a major pharmaceutical producer in his constituency. He is perfectly right to say that its voice, as well as many others, must be heard.
I note the enthusiasm for water meters. I only hope that that is not what at first sight seems to be an easy solution to proper levels of charging in that industry, because the House will learn to address itself increasingly to this issue over the coming years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) made a powerful speech on abortion. While I can offer no promises of Government legislation, the Warnock proposals will come before the House in the new year, in the form of a private Member's Bill prepared by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) — [HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon. Friend?"] Yes, why not?
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) again expressed great interest in charities—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Biffen: Happy Christmas.

Mr. Speaker: And the same to the right hon. Gentleman.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Periodic Adjournments).
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 21st December do adjourn till Wednesday 9th January.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Nuclear Weapons (Tests)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Gavin Strang: Between 1952 and 1958 the United Kingdom conducted 21 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests at the Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia, at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia and at Malden Island and Christmas Island in the south Pacific. In addition, between 1953 and 1963 experiments in which some radioactive materials were dispersed into the environment were carried out in South Australia. Clean-up operations were carried out in 1963, 1964 and 1967. For some years there has been considerable concern about the effects of those nuclear weapons tests by Britain in Australia and the south Pacific, about the amount of radiation emitted during the tests, about the precautions that were or were not taken during the tests, about the contamination of the land and the natural environment by the nuclear explosions, about the damaging effect on the local aborigine population and about the damage that these tests may have done to the health of the servicemen and civilians who participated in them. I am sure that we should have the fullest information about the nature of these tests, about how they were conducted and about the results of the tests.
As a result of the concern that has been expressed in this country and particularly in Australia, in March 1983 the Australian Government asked Professor Kerr of Sydney university to look into the studies that had previously been carried out in Australia. Professor Kerr concluded that important data had not been considered by these studies and recommended that a full-scale Royal Commission should be set up. That Royal Commission was set up in July of this year under Mr. James McClelland. The setting-up of that Royal Commission reflects the widespread concern and anxiety in Australia about the reports of the precautions that were or were not taken, about the effects of the tests on the aborigine population and about the damage to the environment.
It was enormously important that the Australian Government took the decision to set up a Royal Commission. As the Minister will acknowledge, there was criticism in the first few months of the extent to which the British Government would co-operate with the commission. The Minister has recently indicated that some of the inhibitions of the Official Secrets Act will be relaxed to enable, in certain conditions, some people to give evidence about what happened during the tests. The Royal Commission is coming to this country next month. The

Government have stated that they intend to give evidence to the commission. It is very important that the Minister should advise us about the information that will be made available by the British Government to the Royal Commission. There is no longer a case for secrecy. Surely the commission and the public are entitled to all the information about those tests.
Let me deal with the evidence that has been given in Australia to the Royal Commission. I make no apology for quoting again from some of the press reports in this country of the evidence given in Australia to the Royal Commission. A number of reports appeared in The Times from Mr. Tony Duboudin in Melbourne. One said:
The highlight of last week's hearing was the allegation on Wednesday by a former Army lance-corporal who told the inquiry that 200 British and Australian servicemen were threatened with court-martial and the possibility of a firing squad if they recounted an incident in which an aboriginal family wandered into the Marcoo nuclear bomb testing site at Maralinga in the outback of South Australia.
Mr. John Hutton told the commission that on one morning in May, 1956, while he was putting on protective clothing in a caravan before going out into a 'dirty' area around the Marcoo site to help scientists, he saw an Aboriginal man aged about 20, through the window of the caravan, standing in the contaminated area.
That was about seven months after a nuclear bomb had been tested there. Another report said:
The bodies of five Aboriginals were found near an Atomic bomb test site in South Australia in 1956, the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia was told in Brisbane yesterday.
Mr. Terry Troom, a former soldier, said he found the bodies of two adults and three children while on a mail run with five other soldiers. He described the bodies as being all skin and bones and said they were lying under a tree … After his commanding officer was told of the discovery, he believed that bulldozers were moved into the area.
I quoted reports of the evidence given to the Royal Commission in a debate on the Army just after the summer recess. The Minister who replied to the debate did not refer to my speech—I make no criticism of that—so I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is to reply to this debate, wrote to me:
As regards the 'horrific' reports in the media of allegations made to the Royal Commission, most of the allegations are not new and many of them first surfaced during the time of the tests. However, I can assure you that Her Majesty's Government is not goin to allow the Royal Commission to remain ignorant of the true facts. I have already announced that the UK is to seek to be represented before the Commission and that it intends to give evidence.
I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom is to appear before the Commission, but no matter how old the allegations may be, they are important and we are entitled to ask whether there is any basis for the reports in the media. They are horrific and alarming and they cast great doubt on the validity of the claim that all adequate precautions were taken. It is not sufficient to say that the allegations were made at the time of the tests and have been repeated since then.
It is important that we have a statement from the people who know, and the Government have the data and the records and, I expect, full and detailed reports of everything that happened during the tests. Will the Minister tell us whether there is some basis for the horrific reports, or will the Government wait until they are represented at the commission in January before telling us whether there is truth in the disturbing evidence given, in the main, by Australian ex-service men?
There is substantial worry that adequate precautions were not taken during all the tests in Australia and the south Pacific. The Ministry of Defence has repeatedly assured us that the precautions were adequate, but it is surprising that many British ex-service men have stated that they did not wear protective clothing and that proper precautions were not taken.
I shall not quote the statements of all those service men, but there are fears that the instruments for measuring radiation—the badges that were supposed to be worn by service men—were not worn regularly and that in many instances the radiation to which service men were exposed was not recorded. Are the anxieties that are being expressed, particularly in Australia, about the measurement of radiation valid? Was the measurement of radiation as reliable as the Government have maintained?
Earlier I mentioned the contamination of the land, and I think particularly of the position at Maralinga. To what extent has the land and environment been damaged for a very long time by the radiation and the plutonium left there? How successful were the cleaning-up operations? Are the reports true that the land is still contaminated and that a very difficult and costly operation will have to be carried out if there is to be any hope of reducing the level of contamination? What about the reports that some of the aborigine population have been exposed to very high and damaging levels of radiation?
Above all, concern in this country has naturally focused on the very large number of service men who believe that their health has been damaged as a result of participating in the tests.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): I know that the hon. Gentleman has made a very considerable study of this problem. However, he has just referred to a very large number of service men who believe that their present illnesses are due to the tests. Can he put any figure on that?

Mr. Strang: The figure that I have seen reported is up to 300. However, I should be the first to acknowledge that much of that data is dependent on the valiant efforts made by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association to collect information. Whatever the figure is, we must expect it to represent only a fraction of the number of those who have suffered from leukaemia. As I have made clear in every debate on this subject in which I have spoken, I accept that the proposition that those tests damaged the health of those service men or civilians is unproven. Of course, in the normal course of events, a significant proportion of those service men, particularly at their present age, might be expected to die of leukaemia and other diseases that can be caused by radiation. But we cannot dismiss the other possibility.
The Government have set up an investigation. We are grateful for the very full note that I believe the Minister provided all Members of Parliament with on 6 December. It contains some useful information and data on the actual yields of all the tests. But it is somewhat regrettable that he should insist on asserting that he is convinced that no damage has been done to those service men. The last paragraph of the letter from the Minister dated 20 November 1984, which I quoted from earlier, states:
In conclusion, I repeat that I have every confidence that the test programmes in Australia were planned meticulously and conducted responsibly, and that the safety precautions adopted

at the time were more than adequate to ensure that no one should have suffered harm arising from the ionising radiation produced during the test programmes.
Some service men believe that in making that statement, the Minister is in danger of prejudging the outcome of the inquiry being carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board. The Minister is well aware of the work that the BNTVA, and Mr. McGinley as chairman, have put into this subject. Indeed, I hope that he will say something about the progress of that investigation. But I together with the BNTVA and many other people in this country still believe that, given the nature of the tests, the fears that have been expressed and the claims that have been made by those service men, it is not appropriate that the survey should be carried out on the basis of information supplied by the Ministry of Defence.
The Ministry supplies the names and addresses of the service men who participated in the tests. In addition, the Ministry of Defence supplies the names of the control group. I do not cast aspersions on the Ministry but the survey is basically being conducted by the Government. On the one hand the Ministry of Defence provides the data about the service men and civilians who participated in the tests and on the other it provides the data about the control group.
Secondly, the study is being carried out by a body that is funded by the Government and, at the same time, all its members are appointed by the Government. We respect the work of the people in the Ministry and in the NRPB, but it is to misjudge the situation to believe that that type of inquiry is adequate.
Most important of all, the service men should have full confidence in the inquiry. Therefore, I again stress to the Minister that we want a proper independent inquiry. If we cannot have a British Royal Commission, we should have a national committee, with leading scientists and experts drawn from universities, outside the Government machine, who will have full responsibility for supervising and conducting the inquiry and who will publish the results. That is the minimum that we require.
It is surely somewhat ironic that it is the Australian Government who have appointed a Royal Commission. The Australian Government did not carry out the tests, nor do they have the great mass of information about the tests and the way in which they were conducted. Those matters are entirely the responsibility of the British Government. Instead of the Australian Government setting up the Royal Commission—I welcome that—it should be the British Government. I hope that the Government will look again at that.
In conclusion, many hon. Members are taking an increasing interest in this subject. On the basis of the information that is now coming out in Australia there are grounds, to put it mildly, for real concern. I hope that the Government will think again about the secrecy that they are still applying to the tests, which took place about 30 years ago. There is an overwhelming case for making all the information public and enabling us to have a proper independent appraisal of everything that happened in relation to the conduct of the tests.

Mr. Frank Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), on winning first place in what some would call the ballot but which I prefer to call the lottery. This is not a party-political issue. Therefore, I am disappointed at the


attendance in the House tonight. I regret that one has to wait for the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill in order to discuss the issue at all.
We must recognise the loyalty and allegiance, good work and sterling service of the men and women who, some 30 or 35 years ago, served their country by willingly, but in ignorance, allowing themselves to be exposed to a form of experimentation which was quite unreal at the time. Most, but not all, of them were compelled to expose themselves to radiation without any form of protective equipment. Some of them merely wore a beret, pair of shorts and sandals. They followed an instruction to turn their backs to the explosion, which was x miles away and to cover their eyes. They were told that no harm would come to them. We are reliably informed that William Penney was advised to take out insurance to guard against future handicap. I have a file of documents with me that make that clear. Sadly, he is unable to remember such a reference, but we have evidence of it.
We cannot blame the scientists, because they could not know any more than they did at the time, and we have the benefit of hindsight. I have no vindictiveness in my heart. It is important that we realise that the scientists were exploring an element of creation, the depth and danger of which they did not realise. Thirty years after the explosion we must assess who bears the responsibility for it. That is why I strongly emphasise that this is not a party political issue.
It is incumbent upon every hon. Member to examine the population in his constituency, especially the majority of the population who, as the Prime Minister said, served their country, "well and truly". She said that their good and faithful service would never be forgotten. It is important that all hon. Members recognise that, because we must consider the matter without any form of party political bias or emphasis.
We now have a middle-aged element in society which is experiencing an inordinately high incidence of disability—not necessarily deformity—in themselves and in their offspring. I remember that the Minister asked how we could verify the statistics, and I shall come back to that. If disability is in one's offspring, one can expect to see further evidence of it in future generations.
This afternoon I heard of a man who, during his first marriage, had three deformed children. That is unusual, but not so unusual that one would justify it statistically by exposure to a nuclear test. However, he divorced, remarried and had a further two deformed offspring, both of whom were deformed in almost the same way. Again, that is statistically questionable. But when one pools the available evidence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East referred—he demurred to the House because he did not wish to occupy too much of the time—there is a statistical overburden which is unquestionable, provided that one can gain access to the service and medical records of those males and females who were engaged in or exposed to the tests.
That is where I question not only this Government but previous Governments of all political persuasions. Not only has the provision of service and medical records been seriously hampered, but the records have been short of information. In addition, the service records have been carefully falsified. There are cases of entire ships'

complements for which there is no record of their having been in the zone but whose members say that they took part in the preparation for or the clearing up of those operations.
Secrecy plays a major part in this matter. No one could argue tonight — the Minister least of all — that those people do not deserve a fair deal. What we need in the Chamber tonight is the rare commodity of complete honesty among hon. Members of all parties. First, the service records of those people must be clearly outlined. We must obtain information about the medical treatment and examination that they received, and the locations of that medical treatment. We have evidence that many of them were shipped out to establishments run by other Governments. If that information is not provided, then, as the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, we have no means of checking the statistics. If we do not have a base from which to start, we cannot come to a reasonable conclusion.
Britain has legislation—the Crown Proceedings Act 1947—which precludes a member of the armed services from taking legislative action to seek reparation for negligence during his period of service to the Crown. That legislation was dreamed up at a time when we had no knowledge of such operations, and no idea that they might occur in future. In this discussion we are considering a legacy of something about which we could not have known. Will the Government consider amending the Crown Proceedings Act to take account of the almost anachronistic failure of the legislation to cater for the future not only of those who have given good service to the Crown but of their offspring and future generations? We are talking about the suffering, of which we were unaware 30 years ago, of youngsters who may not be allowed to have children and who may have deformities that are even worse than those of their parents or grandparents. We are talking about things about which a legislative body has never before been forced to consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the Royal Commission which is coming here on 3 January. I would have hoped that the survey being conducted by the National Radiological Protection Board would, after all this time, have had some evidence to present, which would illuminate the British aspects of these tests. Sadly, it would appear from my examination of the NRPB survey that the movement of staff has been so grotesquely rapid that the whole team has changed from top to bottom at least once, if not twice. It is unfortunate that many questions that will be asked will be body-swerved on the basis that we have insufficient evidence.
We have so much evidence that it is important that it be examined in depth. A Royal Commission should have been set up, and it would have been welcomed. We must examine the matter more definitely. Ultimately, the people who were in the front line will die out the longer this goes on. We have a responsibility not only to them but to the generations after them.
I beg the Minister to listen carefully to what we say on behalf of the people who gave us such allegiance and loyalty. Will he give a commitment on behalf of the Government—because we now know facts that we did not before—that, in the words of the Prime Minister, he will listen to what has been said on behalf of those who served our country so well.

Nuclear Weapons (Tests)

Mr. David Alton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on securing this debate. I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that he was disappointed that there are so few hon. Members to listen to the debate. As he will recall, I initiated two previous debates on this subject, in July 1983 and March 1984, one of which took place at 4.31 am, and the other at 3.49 am, when there were about half the number of hon. Members who are present tonight. Statistically, that is an improvement, and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
I think that the Minister will accept that this issue will not go away, even though some would suggest that our Government will procrastinate and draw the matter out. The Australian Government cannot be accused of that, and, acting as a stalking horse against our Government, they have ensured that this matter will run and run. Our Government have become rather besotted by the ludicrous new doctrine of inherited culpability. The Government worry too much about the sins of their forefathers. No one is accusing them of having been involved in the events 30 years ago. An all-party group is deeply interested in this subject, and the Government will know that the group thinks not that the Government were involved in the terrible events of those days but that they have done insufficient to make information available, and have tried to cover up for the sins of those who went before them.
I should like to contrast the approaches of the Australian and British Governments in dealing with this matter. First, I shall examine the remedies that are open to aggrieved service men and their families. The hon. Member for Stockton, North rightly referred to section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, with which the Minister will be familiar. When hon. Members have regularly suggested that that legislation should be amended to allow people in the position of these service men to sue the Government, the Ministry of Defence has always maintained that that would lead to a reduction in morale and discipline among our service men, and for that reason the Act could not be amended. I refute that idea. Although I accept that that legislation was introduced to cover the second world war and that in wartime it cannot be right that a Government should be expected to recompense the relatives of loved ones who are aggrieved because of injuries sustained, nevertheless, in peacetime different criteria apply.
It is ironic that in Australia service men who served cheek by jowl with our service men in those tests have had the right to take their Government to court, and in one case have gained redress in the courts, while our service men have been denied that privilege. that is ironic, especially in view of the dubious reason given, that that course would lead to some loss of morale or discipline among our men. It would therefore appear that the Australian Government have a far greater respect for the rights of their service men than we have for ours. I suggest that that fact points to the need for a bill of rights or at least the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in our statute books. If that were done, any Government who acted in this way would be in breach of their obligations.
The second contrast between the way in which the British and Australian Governments have tackled this problem concerns the availability of information. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, the Australians have established a Royal Commission. It is ironic that we should have the same Queen but that different ground rules should apply. It is a paradox that the Australians should have established a Royal Commission but that what is good enough in Australia is not good enough here.
In Britain, secrecy is the order of the day, and that fact obviously points to the need in the dying moments of this year for freedom of information legislation. It is one of the tragedies of this year that we have not moved towards providing greater access to information for our citizens. Far too much of this country's business is done in a hole in a corner, and we are plagued far too much by the national obsession for and disease of secrecy, of keeping knowledge from people who have a right to know.
When the Minister intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and suggested that the hon. Gentleman should provide the statistics in this debate, that seemed to underline again the extraordinary fact that, because of the way in which the system works, the Opposition are denied access to the information that would have allowed them to answer such a question. The people are really asking only for the right to that information, so that they can come to the type of judgments which the Minister constantly tells them they should make. The Minister tells us that, statistically, what happens here is no worse than it would be for any other part of the population, and all the rest of it. We have heard those arguments repeated from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Butler: I do not believe that that charge can be made in this case. The hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) have studied this matter. The question I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East involved how many people the hon. Gentleman thought were claiming that their present ill-health resulted from the tests. That information is not available to the Government, so it is not information that the Government can be accused of withholding.

Mr. Alton: When will that information be available? For 18 months, the Government have been giving us different figures. I suggested:
The figures ranged from 13,500 to 20,000 people and they were given in the space of only six months." — [Official Report, 12 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 187.]
That was the answer given by the Prime Minister. Clearly, if the Government are not aware how many people will be surveyed and how many were involved in those tests, how can hon. Members expect to have any idea of what constitutes a reliable statistical sample or survey?
The third contrast that I should like to make between the way that the British and Australian Governments have handled the matter relates to the sense of urgency shown and the anger that people rightly feel about the issue. Since early October, the Australian Royal Commission has taken evidence from more than 100 veterans and scientists. As we have heard, it is to come to the United Kingdom in the new year to interview another 60 witnesses.
The Royal Commission was established after a Government report asserted that Australia had been kept in ignorance all along about the true nature of the British tests. Why, first having promised the full co-operation of Her Majesty's Government in the work of that


commission, did the Government decline to send anyone to put Britain's case until two week's ago? Why did that change of mind come about? Although I welcome it, I should like to know why, having first said that we would co-operate in the Royal Commission's work, we failed to send anyone, and why it took so long to change our minds.
Why did the Government deliberately frustrate the attempts of the veterans to gain legal aid in Australia by withholding information which is locked away in British archives?
The chairman of the commission, Mr. Justice James McClelland, has rebuked Britain over what he calls
a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs… that there is ultimately a right of British veto.
He says:
It is most desirable that we should not conduct this commission with our hands tied behind our back.
Although I know that 8,500 files have been released, many people in Australia claim that others are still held back. Can the Minister do anything tonight to allay the fears of the chairman of the commission and to refute his damning indictment?
Two incidents that have been revealed over the past few weeks show the Government's obsession with secrecy. After one of the Maralinga blasts in 1957, officials discovered an aboriginal family who said that they had camped in the bomb crater for two days and drunk water collected there. The family were given showers and sent back to the desert. John Hutton, an Australian service man, has told the commission that 200 soldiers were assembled later and told by a British officer that if anyone let out news of the incident to the media, he would be tried for treason. The men were allegedly reminded that under the Official Secrets Acts they could be shot by a firing squad or gaoled for 30 years if they talked about it. I should welcome the Minister's comments about those allegations.
I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister the remarks of Paul Malone, who works for The Canberra Times in the press gallery in Parliament House in Australia. I sent this document to the Minister's predecessor, the Minister for Information Technology, on 21 September 1984. In that document, Mr. Malone says:
An examination of the documents written at the time of the tests reveals that many of the published official reports on the subject do not tell the whole truth. In fact in many cases the official reports are misleading. This particularly applies in relation to aboriginal presence in the region at the time of the tests. I have submitted pages of questions to the British High Commission here and have only just received a reply. Most of my questions have not been answered. Although the Commission has had the questions in writing for over six weeks, the response I received today to most questions was simply 'referred to London'.
When the Minister replied to that letter he went to great pains to say that, while he refuted many of Mr. Malone's allegations, he did not want to pre-empt the findings of the commission. It is amazing that information which might damage the Ministry of Defence is initially withheld. It is then released, sometimes grudgingly, to the Australian Royal Commission. Yet members of the press in Australia and here and Members of Parliament are denied access to the same information.
On another issue in the letter, the Minister says:
Although I sympathise with the unfortunate people who are referred to in the newspaper article"—
in the Sunday People—

the article is an example of mischievous reporting, which can only act to spread unnecessary concern among the many thousands of participants and their families involved in the tests.
Those articles referred to the genetic effects of the atomic tests on many of the children of service men who were involved in the tests, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Stockton, North.
I shall refer to three such cases this evening. The first is that of Ken Clarke of Wigan, Lancashire. He is 47 years of age. He was with the Royal Air Force on Christmas Island. He suffers from bronchitis but otherwise he is fairly fit. His son John, who is 25 years of age, has had problems with his knees since he was a teenager and has had two operations. His daughter, Janine, is 18 years of age. She has a disease affecting her hip joint and finds it difficult to walk. She says:
The doctors do not even have a name for my condition.
Secondly, there is the case of Geoff Collins. He is aged 48 years and resides in Wallasey, Merseyside. He visited the Monte Bello islands during service as a Navy radio operator. His 20-year-old daughter has a badly deformed spine and shoulder blades and a congenital abscess of the middle ear, making her deaf. When she was born, doctors thought at first that she was a thalidomide victim, but her mother never took thalidomide. Geoff says:
I have the nagging belief that my daughter has suffered because of the involvement with the tests.
The third case is that of Desmond Shaw, aged 50 years, of Liverpool, who was on Christmas Island. Five years after returning home he was struck down with an arthritic condition which his doctors were unable to diagnose accurately. He suffers still from this ailment. His daughter, Maria, was healthy at birth but at the age of one year she suddenly blacked out and has been mentally handicapped ever since. She is now 15 years of age and she attends a special school. Desmond's wife, Mary, says:
No one knows what caused Maria's trouble. The doctors just shrug their shoulders and say, 'It is one of those things.'
I have mentioned only three such cases, but the Sunday People has evidence that 57 children of British service men who were exposed to nuclear bomb tests have died, been hideously deformed or disabled or suffer crippling diseases. It makes the point in its article that there is no statistical evidence that these deaths, deformities, disablements or cripplings are greater per head of population than the deficiencies which occur in normal circumstances. However, there is a lingering doubt in the minds of many of the families involved. There is a belief among many of them that their children have suffered because of their parents' involvement in the Maralinga and Christmas Island tests. I should like to know from the Minister what he intends to do to ensure that a survey is conducted to determine what genetic effects there have been on the children of these service men.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has referred to the Minister's letter of 6 December. Part of the letter reads:
All the evidence I have indicates that proper precautions were taken to safeguard the health and safety of those involved in the UK's atmospheric nuclear test programmes. It is important to note that the standards in use at that time were comparable with those of today.
If the right hon. Gentleman reads all the evidence that hon. Members have sent him and the two previous debates on this matter, he will find a document which his Department produced in 1953. The document gives the lie to the suggestion that service men were properly clothed or that proper precautions were taken. One paragraph


describes what the Army set out to do in the tests. It is a Ministry of Defence document which was top secret. It reads:
The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection.
So the men who were to be involved in the atomic explosions were to be exposed to the effects of radiation with and without protective clothing to discover what the effects would be on them. That gives the lie to the suggestion that adequate safety standards were set. It is rather reminiscent of all the bravado of the cold war years. It betrays an alarming ignorance of the effects of radiation in those early days.
The Minister says that it will be October 1986 before the survey by the National Radiological Board is completed. I believe that that is an unnecessarily long time to wait. Although I respect individual scientists who are working on the survey, I still believe that a body entirely independent of the Government should have undertaken the task. Service men and their families cannot understand why the survey is taking so long to complete. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress is being made.
In summary, I should like to make just five points. The survey should be expedited more quickly. Every assistance should be given to the Australian Royal Commission and our own should be established. All files and documents relating to that period should be released. The Crown Proceedings Act should be reviewed and amended to enable people to take the Ministry of Defence to court if they feel that they have suffered grievances as a result of those tests. Finally, a survey of the genetic effects of radiation on children of test blast victims must be urgently undertaken.
I am grateful for the debate, and to the Minister for being here to reply to the points that have been made.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): This is a most opportune time for the debate. I am well aware of the situation and have read the debates that have taken place over the past year or so, but the reason why I describe the debate as opportune is that the attention of all those who are interested in the subject, and possibly of those who may not have been well acquainted with it in the past, will be concentrated somewhat more in the coming months when the Australian Royal Commission comes to London and goes about its business in the first few weeks of next year. The debate is opportune because it allows me to say one or two things that I have already said in different ways and about which I have written to Members of Parliament, in an attempt to present a fair and reasonable factual background to an issue that, frankly, is difficult, complex and, understandably, often emotional.
One has only to listen to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) refer to the cases of Mr. Clarke and Mr. Collins and their families and others, upon which I shall not comment — the House will understand why—and to details given in the debate and on other occasions, to appreciate even more the particular strains that those families are under. I say with the fullest possible sympathy that one fully understands why several of those who participated in the tests—who may or may not have been exposed to radiation, but believed that they were—and who suffer from cancer and cancer-related

diseases attribute the incidence of those diseases to the fact that they participated in the tests. It is entirely understandable. In each and every one of those cases one difficulty is to establish whether that was so, but the greater difficulty is to persuade those concerned that it was not so.
I should like to take up a point made by at least two of the three people who spoke in the debate about the knowledge that existed at the time. For instance, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said that we had not realised the great danger of radiation at that time. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill made a remark in similar vein. The fact is that when the first nuclear tests took place at Monte Bello in 1952, extensive knowledge of the effects of nuclear weapons was already in the possession of those responsible for the conduct of the tests. The preparations for the 1952 test and the recognition of the potential radiation hazards are clearly outlined in a report to the Chiefs of Staff meeting in September 1949. That was conveyed to the then Australian Prime Minister when his agreement for the tests was sought in 1951. Care and concern for the safety of the participants is apparent throughout the whole programme.
The effects of ionising radiation, far from having been discovered during the experimental period of the tests, had been known since the turn of the century. By the early 1950s when the tests started, permitted levels were internationally established at a point at which it was judged that the harm caused was acceptable in comparison with the other risks that we face every day of our working lives. The principle enshrined in modern radiological protection practice—as low as reasonably practicable—had not at that time been formulated in the precise terms that apply today, but it was a basic tenet that exposure to ionising radiation had to be kept to a minimum within permitted limits and consistent with the needs of the operation.
Against that background, I can say clearly that the limits set in the regulations that applied to the Hurricane operation in 1952 are comparable with those that apply today. Many of the distinguished scientists who helped to determine those limits for the United Kingdom test programme have since served on the International Commission for Radiological Protection and have therefore seen broadly the same standards developed in the early 1950s enshrined in the current commission's recommendations more than 30 years later.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the following statement:
The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men, with and without various types of protection.
That is in a document marked "special circulation" and "top secret". It is dated 20 May 1953—four years after the date specified by the Minister.
Another top secret document—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make another speech.

Mr. Cook: I am not making a speech. I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that I am asking a question.
There is another top secret document, dated 2 January 1953. The Australian vessel HMS Hawkesbury had been in that area—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not sound like a question to me.

Mr. Cook: This is my question, Mr. Speaker. If the knowledge of the threat of radiation existed in 1949, as the Minister claims, why would certain areas of the Monte Bello islands remain from the January date until April and possibly longer still extremely dangerous so that everything had to be excluded? If all this was already known five years earlier, why should there be top secret documents about it?

Mr. Butler: I find it difficult to see how the hon. Gentleman's intervention relates to what I was saying.

Mr. Cook: It is a matter of logic.

Mr. Butler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, just as I allowed him to develop his. I shall some to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, which has been dealt with many times before, but it was not immediately relevant to the point that I was making.
I was answering the assertion of the hon. Member for Stockton, North that we were, as it were, ignorant of the effects of radiation and thus finding our way during the course of the tests and that only today have the kind of limits been established that we consider to be safe for people such as radiation workers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that was not the case. The knowledge went back a considerable number of years. On ionising radiation, it went back to the turn of the century. I believe that what I have said belies the claim that standards were lax at the time of the United Kingdom test and confirms that the international scientific view of the acceptability of the risks of exposure to ionising radiation has not altered despite the vastly greater body of data on its effects which has been collected and examined during the period since then. It is important to make that point first and foremost.
The next point that I must make is one that I emphasised in the note that I sent to all hon. Members. Frequently, when this matter is debated, one could form the impression that hundreds of people were exposed to massive doses of radiation that would not be acceptable today. I have described the limits in operation at the time, and the knowledge that existed, and have said that those limits were comparable with those of today.
Let us now consider the numbers who were exposed to radiation and the levels at which they were exposed. This part of my reply will inevitably be somewhat detailed. I hope that the House will bear with me while I try to set in context the levels of radiation to which people such as radiation workers may be exposed today compared with the levels of radiation to which those who participated in the tests were exposed.
I hope that the House will forgive me for reading this part of my speech. It may be helpful if the information is printed in Hansard and can be used as a record.
The current United Kingdom national limits for radiation workers are 30 milliSieverts per quarter, or an annual limit of 120 mSv, provided that the annual average dose from the age of 18 is less than 50 mSv. The international commission includes a single planned special exposure limit of 100 mSv provided that a limit of 250 mSv from such special exposures in the working life is not exceeded within the lifetime limit of 2,500 mSv. The current commission's recommendations set an annual average limit of 50 mSv.
As the House knows, about 20,000 people participated in the tests. Of those, 15,000 suffered no additional radiation exposure at all. There were some 6,000 recorded exposures associated with 5,000 individuals who experienced some radiation. Starting at the top of the scale, fewer than 30 experienced more than 70 mSv. In order not to take up too much time, I ask those who are interested to compare that figure with the figures that I have just given. There were fewer than 150 in the range between 20 and 70 mSv., and about 500 falling between 3·5 mSv. and 20 mSv. About 1,500 had measured exposures of less than 3·5 mSv. The remaining exposures, of which there were about 4,000, were not distinguishable from exposure to normal natural background radiation.
Participants aged about 60 will have received on average a dose from natural background radiation of about 150 mSv., or about 2·5 mSv. per annum. I understand that, within reasonable limits, a continuing dose of radiation at a low level, adding up to a certain figure, has approximately the same effect as a single high dose of that amount.
Even at the highest level, therefore, and for a very few people, the levels of radiation to which people were exposed were within the sort of levels that are acceptable today. For the vast majority, they were comparable with those that a normal person would receive during his life on this earth. The amount of radiation absorbed can vary by up to five times the average, depending on what part of the United Kingdom a person lives inland what type of house he lives in. The majority were exposed to limited levels. That must be important when we consider whether there was a risk.
We must also consider whether proper precautions were taken. I am aware as anyone else who has studied this subject of the anecdotal evidence about precautions not being followed properly. As far as I am aware, those claims have not been substantiated, or they have been based on a false understanding. I am persuaded by the evidence that I have seen, and from studying the matter as closely as I can, that precautions were adequate and observed. It is quite conceivable that, where there are human beings, errors can be made. I have no evidence of that, but it is therefore conceivable that some of the stories are based on fact. Even if there was some error, the amount of radiation to which those people would have been exposed would have been very small. The fewer than 30 people who were exposed to the higher levels were given specific tasks and knew that they would be exposed to high levels. If errors occurred, the chances of people being damaged are minimal.
How, then, do we attempt to prove whether I am right? That must be done in a statistical exercise. That is why the survey has been set up. It is unreasonable to charge the National Radiological Protection Board with any bias or with any lack of independence of mind when tackling its work. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that information would be supplied by the Ministry of Defence. That is necessary because it has the records, but the board has made it clear that it will validate all information given to it before undertaking its work. The Ministry does not and will not dictate how the board undertakes that work. I cannot think of a better body to do the work. It is highly competent and has a great deal of experience. We do no service to our search for the truth by suggesting that the board's work will be other than comprehensive and unbiased.
I was asked whether the board was tackling the problem with a sense of urgency. When I took on my new responsibilities and discovered that the board's report would not be available until the autumn of 1986, I reacted as would have anyone else. I made special inquiries to discover whether there was any way in which to accelerate its work. I was told that, if the exercise was to be done properly, it would take that time. The report is statistical and objective. That is its importance as compared with the work of the Royal Commission. In no way am I suggesting that the Royal Commission was not objective, but a statistical exercise is, by definition, objective.
There will be a need to demonstrate that the control group or groups have suffered a different health experience from the participants. If 300 service men have experienced cancer and similar diseases as a result of the tests, the statistical analysis will show a higher incidence of cancer among participants than the norm. That must be so statistically. As I have said previously, if that is so the Government will have to change their stance.
The important thing is that by carrying out this exercise, and not through listening to the evidence of individuals, we shall be able to establish that first important point. I do not propose to consider a Royal Commission until the findings of that board are known. Only if they show a difference in experience between the control group and participants will the Government reconsider their position to see what the next step should be.

Mr. Alton: If this is to be a survey of only 20,000 people — a relatively small number—why will it take until October 1986 for it to be completed?

Mr. Butler: The board will undoubtedly read this debate, and it will note the urgency that the House, like the Government, places on the need for early publication of its report. My Department has been told that the work is of such a nature—and this is a highly complex matter — as to take this length of time. No one would be gladder than I if it could report earlier.
The Government were criticised for taking a different line from the Australian Government. I refute absolutely that we are going about our work in the wrong way. It is, however, correct that the Australian Government have set up a commission which, in the relatively near future, will be taking evidence in London.
This is an Australian Royal Commission, set up primarily to inquire into safety precautions and the possible effects of the tests on the health of Australians. Naturally, when the Australian Prime Minister requested United Kingdom co-operation in providing relevant information to the commission, the Government's

response was to assure full co-operation within the constraints imposed on them on the grounds of national security or international obligations.
Already, literally hundreds—possibly thousands—of documents have been made available. With the exception of classified material, all information which is being made available to the commission will be made available in the Public Records Office. Special arrangements have been made with the Royal Commission that any relevant material which must remain classified is available to it.
It is not the Government's normal policy to release official documentation before the 30-year time period prescribed by the Public Records Act 1958. The decision to do so in this case is a reflection of our willingness to co-operate fully with the Australian authorities. I therefore refute the suggestion that our co-operation has in any sense been lukewarm or half-hearted.
It is correct that in the early days we decided not to be represented by counsel in Australia. That is very different from giving evidence. We have now decided to be so represented. With the advent in London of the commission, I believe that counsel will be helpful. It is necessary that evidence, based as much on fact and recorded experience as possible, is put before the commission. The evidence that the Government give will generally be presented by those who took part in the tests—for example, by Scientists, who have a full record of their experience. That evidence will be laid before the commission to enable it not to seek to pass judgment on the British Government—that is not the purpose of the commission—but to enable it to establish the factual background to its investigations into the circumstances of the test and the possible implications for the health of Australians.
To illustrate the contact and co-operation that exists, the terms and conditions under which the commission will operate in the United Kingdom have been agreed between myself and Senator Evans, who is the new Australian Minister for Resources and Energy. We wish the commission well in its work.
I end with the assertion that I have made on previous occasions. I have confidence that the safety precautions in the tests were more than adequate to ensure that nobody should have suffered harm from the effects of ionising radiation from the United Kingdom test programme. As for the possibility of its effects on United Kingdom participants, we have set up the NRPB study. That will demonstrate whether their health has been adversely affected by their presence. I can assure the House that I have to retain, and that I do retain, an open mind on that matter against the reports of the board.

Regional Development

Mr. A. J. Beith: When the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry came before the House on 28 November to announce his revised regional areas and regional development aid policy, he dealt a very cruel blow to a part of my constituency which suffers from very high unemployment. I was not the only hon. Member who had cause for concern and sorrow on that occasion. Many hon. Members rose to criticise the map which had been drawn while other hon. Members rose to praise it, including a number of hon. Members with constituencies in the west midlands. I described it then as a slapdash map drawn by somebody sitting behind a desk in London. I stand by that criticism. It applies not only to my constituency but to others. There may be other hon. Members who wish to speak in order to underline that point in relation to other areas. However, one factor that made that map more slapdash than it needed to be was the use of travel-to-work areas as a building block or as a unit by which to define the areas in which regional aid was to be concentrated.
The objective of the policy was that regional aid should be concentrated on those areas which most needed it. That is a laudable objective which I share entirely but which I contend was not satisfied by the way the map was drawn in relation to my own and certain other areas. The travel-to-work areas were controversial and contentious. They had been drawn up only a few months previously, in the face of very intense argument. The local authorities in my constituency and I protested at the way in which those areas were being drawn and the consequences which would follow. We saw that the next step would be that the redefined travel-to-work area would be regarded as having an overall lower level of unemployment and therefore would not qualify for aid.
On the day of the announcement the Minister tried to defend those new travel-to-work areas. He indicated that statistically they were fine because they included 70 per cent. of the people living in the area who travelled to work in it. If, however, the whole country were taken as a single travel-to-work area, it would satisfy the statistical criteria. If half the country were take as a single travel-to-work area it would satisfy the statistical criteria. In my own constituency, an area of hundreds of square miles has been taken as a travel-to-work area and, by what was a very shabby trick, an attempt has been made to conceal the unemployment problem in one community. I shall return later to that point in more detail. That is the fundamental error.
The determination of regional boundaries need not have had such a devastating effect. It was open to Ministers not to use the travel-to-work area as the definition of an area. In Manchester, the Government used ward boundaries and, under the order, that could have been done in other parts of the country where the travel-to-work area was such an unsatisfactory guide. The fact that the Government could vary the pattern only in Manchester shows that they had not adopted a flexible approach to areas of the country that most needed it.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is to reply to the debate, knows the circumstances, because the local authorities and I corresponded with him during the summer and he kindly saw a deputation of

councillors from all the political parties in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman listened carefully, before the announcement was made, to a strongly pressed case. Yet that absurd announcement, which will have drastic effects on the community of Amble in my constituency, was still made. The Government got it wrong. They should admit that, and try to do something to put it right.
What sort of area is regional aid designed to help? I suggest that it is the sort of area where one in three adults has no job, over 80 per cent. of council tenants receive housing benefit, over 45 per cent. of owner-occupiers receive rent rebate, fewer than 50 per cent. of families own a car, about 25 per cent. of the children get free school meals, there has been a substantial reduction in employment in the coal industry and where, to take some of the wider social criteria, only 18 per cent. of children stay on at school after 16—compared with 57 per cent. in other parts of the county of Northumberland that are within the development area and are treated as being in greater need than Amble.
The general unemployment and social situation in Amble has been made much worse. For example, 150 men have been put on the dole since the Government's announcement because of redundancies in opencast coal mining. It is estimated that there will be about 470 redundancies in that industry by 1992. There is a steady rundown in employment, which is the natural consequence of sites being worked out.
Earlier this week, I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for Energy about the rundown in opencast coal mining. The reply illustrated how out of touch the Government are. I asked what discussions the right hon. Gentleman had had with representatives of opencast workers about the redundant mineworkers payments scheme. Opencast workers do not benefit from the scheme. I was amazed to read the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who said:
my right hon. Friend has pointed out that the prospects for opencast mining appear to be good and unlikely to give rise to large-scale redundancies consequent upon restructuring." —[Official Report, 17 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 26–27.]
That was a week or so after the announcement of 150 redundancies and at the beginning of a period in which we expect many more.
The largest employer in Amble is the building trade. Where will that be left by the Government's recent announcement that local councils cannot use money that they have saved for house building and improvement grants? That will be yet another blow to the biggest employer in Amble. The prospects of an upturn for that trade have been effectively destroyed by yesterday's announcement, which was so vigorously challenged by Conservative Members when the statement was made and in today's debate.
The Government have added further blows since the regional development announcement. Last week, they closed the Amble training workshop, which operates under the special programmes. Without warning, consultation or discussions, we learnt a week or 10 days ago that the Government had suddenly closed the workshop which gives youngsters, some of whom have difficulty in fitting into normal employment, a chance of training. The workshop was closed and the staff were made redundant. Within that same period, the hours of the jobcentre have been cut to a minimum. The jobcentre was to be closed


in an area with very high unemployment. We have now got it open for two half days a week, but I remind hon. Members that unemployment is way above the national average in that area.
This year, 163 pupils left Coquet high school in Amble. Of those, 143 are still looking for jobs, including 80 on Government programmes. I do not think that it was ever envisaged that the Government programmes would have to take well over half the number of school leavers, or that so huge a proportion of them—nearly all of them—would be out of a job by this stage in the year. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is saying from a sedentary position, the nearest skillcentre, Killingworth, is also closing. It is not very near, but it is the nearest, and the only one that we have got.
Coquet high school's headmaster has made some despairing comments about the problem. He said:
A considerable emphasis in this school is given to those activities which will equip young people with skills which employers will value, such as technological awareness. … To diminish opportunities further would intensify the frustration, bitterness and anger which is evident among many young people who already feel that society is treating them with a lack of concern verging on contempt.
That is not an unrealistic comment when 143 out of 163 school leavers have no job. On every count Amble has an overwhelming case. So why is it being given the cold shoulder? The Government's excuse is that the new travel-to-work area that they have drawn up does not have high enough unemployment to justify special aid. They have pushed Amble into a huge area covering hundreds of square miles in the hope of concealing its problems. Of course, I and the local authorities protested vigorously about that at the time. But the Government's trick has not worked, because unemployment is now higher in the Alnwick and Amble total travel-to-work area than it is in the neighbouring Ashington and Morpeth area, which gets the full development treatment.
Unemployment is now higher even in the whole travel-to-work area than in the development area. On the November figures there is 16.3 per cent. adult unemployment in the whole travel-to-work area, as against 16 per cent. in the neighbouring area, which qualified for full development aid. Indeed, that is leaving on one side the fact that within the Amble employment exchange area unemployment stands, I believe, at about 33 per cent, or higher.
Even in the whole Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area, unemployment is much higher than in relatively prosperous communities, such as Ponteland, which is also in the development area. Those who are not from the north-east will not realise that in mentioning Ponteland and Darras Hall I am talking about Newcastle's most favoured and affluent suburb. It is a very attractive area, much favoured by executives for housing purposes. House prices are high and it is very popular. It simply does not have the problems of a place such as Amble, yet it gets the full benefit of development area status. There is no logic in that.
The real unemployment figure for the Amble employment exchange area is at least one in three, and that amply justifies giving that area a status that is even above that of development status now being offered by the Government. It deserves even more help than that. We are already feeling the effects of the Government's callous decision. One firm that was set up in an advance factory

in Amble has now moved to the Tyneside area, where grants are available. The firm T. A. C. Display, which started in small premises in Amble and was helped by the council, took on an advance factory of 5,000 sq ft, took an option on another 5,000 sq ft factory to expand, but has now uprooted and gone to the development area where the grants are.
Other employers in Amble are worried about their position and wonder what their future will be. A very successful firm in the area, Phoenix Mountaineering Ltd, says:
When we look around at the inducements offered by other places, it makes us wonder if we made the right decision to come to Amble in the first place.
Peter Cutts, a director of P. E. C. Furniture Ltd, says:
If we were in the same position now as in 1974, we would probably never have come to Amble from Bedlington".
Bedlington is in the development area.
The managing director of L. Animation, another local firm, says:
Amble is suffering particularly today and will never recover unless measures are introduced which will positively discriminate in its favour.
So many of the existing employers are worried.
How shall we persuade new employers to come to the area when down the road they can get substantially greater benefits in areas where unemployment is not as bad as it is in Amble?
An even more serious problem arises from the Government's decision. It is the exclusion of the area from EEC regional development aid. The firms and local authorities in my constituency are more worried about that than about the loss of limited assistance which will now flow to places in development areas under the Government's policies. They are worried that the European door is now being slammed on them.
That is in a situation where the local authorities have tried their best to mount projects to build up the infrastructure in the area seeking European and national aid. The local authorities in the area have undertaken a number of projects—a 48-acre industrial estate; a new electricity substation; a purpose-built workshop let to a successful manufacturer; the conversion of redundant lock-up garages to form five nursery units for small workshops, which was undertaken in partnership with the Development Commission; the reconstruction of the north and south breakwaters in the harbour; the construction of a major new distributor road to open up land for private sector housing; a running track and sports centre at the new high school; and the county has plans to improve roads into Amble. Such work will be frustrated in future if we have no access to the European aid and help which is available for such projects.
The local authority now wants to engage in other projects. One is for a marina, on which the local authority is working hard. Amble is increasingly popular as a sailing centre. It may be that we can get some of that project in before the axe falls and before the closing date. Local authority officers are working hard to do it, but, if they are not successful, that project, too, will fail to get the European aid that might be available. Road works are still essential to improve communications to the industrial sites in the area. Tourist projects could be undertaken in the area and EEC financial assistance could be obtained for firms.
Infrastructure work would help the fishing industry. Although we shall not lose access to FEOGA grants as a result of this decision, other works which could be of real


help to the fishing industry and fish marketing in the area depend on European regional fund aid, which will no longer be available to us.
When the Government put forward their case, they come back again and again to the travel-to-work area issue. I had an oral question today, which was not reached and was therefore answered in written form by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, asking him again why Amble had been excluded. He said:
Amble is part of the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area. That area certainly has an unemployment rate which is above the national average but that is true of many areas which are not included in the new assisted areas map … On the overall criteria used for making comparisons with the country generally, the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area did not justify assisted area status.
That is no longer true, for the reason that I gave earlier. The travel-to-work area has a higher unemployment rate than the area within the development area. Even more significantly, the travel-to-work area conceals the reality that the level of unemployment in the Amble employment exchange area is so high by any calculation that it fully justifies the inclusion of that employment exchange area within a development area. I ask the Minister to accept that.
I want to make two proposals to the Government. The first is the simple, straightforward and only answer for a Government who got it wrong the first time. They should redraw the map and put the Amble employment exchange area into the development area where it should be. That solution relies on the method the Government used in the case of Manchester, not to rely on the travel-to-work area, and it is the obvious answer.
If the Government are not prepared to do that—I cannot understand why they should not—they should consider one other proposal to avoid the consequences of this appalling misjudgment. The Government could ensure that Amble remains eligible for European regional development aid by classifying the rural development area, of which it is part, as an assisted area for EC regional fund purposes. Rural development areas are established by the Development Commission, which is the governing body and gives a great deal of help to my constituency and other rural areas, mainly those with a small population. Therefore, they are Government assisted areas and should qualify for European regional development aid. If the Government were prepared to fight this battle and win the argument, they would bring the benefits of EC regional aid to rural assisted areas that they have omitted from their development areas. I emphasise that second possibility because it could be a powerful help in solving Amble's problems.
If the Government do nothing, they will be condemning one of our hardest hit areas to struggle against impossible odds, and bribing employers to go to far more prosperous areas. Amble is one of the hardest hit communities. The Government have done it a terrible disservice by their decision. It is not too late for them to put it right.

Mr. David Penhaligon: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We represent almost the two extremes in England, in that there are only two constituencies beyond mine and none beyond his. However, my

argument is similar to his. I wish to argue about the review, which is based purely and simply on travel-to-work areas and which ignores the reality of areas.
According to the statistics for November 1984, my dearly beloved county of Cornwall has 21·2 per cent. male unemployment and 15·8 per cent. female unemployment. Cornwall would qualify as a travel-to-work area on the basic definition of 70 per cent. going to work within the area. Indeed, the figure must be about 98 per cent. If Cornwall had been one travel-to-work area, the entire county would have received development assistance. However, one third of it is omitted. There are the travel-to-work areas of St. Austell and Truro, both of which are in my constituency, and of Launceston, which is not but which is part of my county.
The reason for that is easy to see. If one examines the crude unemployment figures for those areas, one sees that the figures are 14·4 per cent. for St. Austell, 12·2 per cent. for Truro, and 13·9 per cent. for Launceston. I recognise that they are lower than in the rest of the county. These are small oases of prosperity in the middle of a county that suffers from endemic unemployment and a low wage structure.
The brief provided by the Library puts travel-to-work areas in order of levels of unemployment. It shows how bad the general position is in my county. We have the highest level of unemployment in Great Britain. In Newquay, unemployment is 29 per cent. In this sad league, Falmouth comes 13th, Helston 14th, Penzance and St. Ives 15th, and Redruth 35th. We have five entries in the worst 35 in the country, and there are 322 teams in that league of agony.
Liverpool comes 28th in the league. No hon. Member believes that Liverpool deserves anything other than all the financial assistance that any Government may feel inclined to give for regional development. Indeed, many hon. Members would argue that it needs even more than that. Although Cornwall has four entries above Liverpool, it matters not one iota. The little cases of prosperity within my great county, which is about 100 miles long, have been left out. The position is even worse than that. The crude unemployment figures in my county are totally meaningless.
The Minister may have had drawn to his attention a question that I asked in January this year. It was an unusual question, in that, instead of asking the Minister to list the number of women unemployed in named travel-to-work areas, I asked whether, relative to the most recent census, the Minister could list, for each county in Great Britain, the number of women aged between 25 and 54 who were in paid employment. One would have thought that the number of women employed would have related in some way to the number unemployed, but that is far from being so. The answer revealed that only 46·1 per cent. of women in my county are employed. That is the lowest for Great Britain; it is lower than Merseyside, the Western Isles, the west midlands, the north-east, the north-west and certainly the south-east. Yet the unemployment figures suggest that female unemployment in Cornwall is not significantly worse than that in the rest of Great Britain. The figures showed that 46 per cent. of women in Cornwall worked, compared with 56 per cent. in Merseyside, 58 per cent. in the west midlands, and more than 62 per cent. in London. The figures are meaningless, yet that is what the analysis has been based upon.
My second reason is the general lack of prosperity in the county. Those of us who know the area, and who were born and brought up there, are often shocked by the prosperity of the south-east. But it is difficult to produce figures to demonstrate that air of poverty. The only statistic that we can use is the new earnings survey, which states that, for men aged more than 21, the average wage in England is 168·10. In Cornwall, it is £138·80. Again, that is the lowest in Great Britain. It is lower than on Merseyside, in the west midlands, the east midlands, the lowlands of Scotland, Glasgow and Liverpool. That figure is not something new, as the Minister would know if he examined the figures. Sadly, that has been the position for a long time. Yet that little oasis in the middle of Cornwall, in which by Cornish standards there is some sign of prosperity, has been left out and will receive no assistance. The average wages in Warwickshire and Merseyside respectively are £157 and £161.
What will be the effects of the Government's decision? One case that I plead, although the area is not in my constituency—this is more a countywide matter than a constituency one—is the development area of United Downs, of which I am sure no Minister has heard. It is at the centre of what used to be the mining area of Cornwall. A few years ago, Carrick district council decided, adventurously, at considerable expense—the irony is that it received some assistance from the Government—to fill in the mine shafts and try to reclaim that industrial desert, which is all that it can be called. United Downs is just four miles from Camborne, five miles from Redruth, and six or seven miles from Falmouth, which are in the top 35 travel-to-work areas in Great Britain in terms of unemployment. But sadly for United Downs—such is the way these things work—it is not in the Camborne travel-to-work area, to which it is closer physically but in the Truro travel-to-work area. Therefore, it has been completely cut off from assistance.
Given the Government's enthusiasm for travel-to-work areas, is there some way in which United Downs can be transferred from the Truro travel-to-work area to Camborne or Redruth? I should repeat that, although United Downs is not in my constituency, I consider the matter to be so outrageous that I must draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd)—this is not a party political point in my county — has tried to draw it to the Minister's attention, but I am using this opportunity to emphasise the lunacy of the decision. This is a blow to United Downs and to the Truro area as a whole. More than that, it is a blow to the St. Austell area. Truro is not an industrial town. The largest manufacturer there is Furniss biscuits. The biscuits are magnificent, should be tried by every hon. Member and make an extremely good Christmas present, should anybody want one. The last time that I checked, the firm employed fewer than 30 people, and as that is the biggest manufacturer in Truro, that shows that the loss of the status is not too important for that city.
However, for St. Austell, the loss is important because it is an industrial town. It is dominated by the china clay industry, which fortunately is extremely industrious and profitable. However, because of mechanisation and technology, the number of people that it employs is never likely to exceed the present number, and St. Austell recognises that. For a long time, it has been trying desperately to build an alternative industrial base.
Today, I had a letter inviting me to open a new factory site, which has come about as a result of the generous co-operation of local authorities and various Government agencies. Now, that factory site will receive no financial assistance. There is a feeling that the whole effort has been killed stone dead. How can somebody persuade a manufacturer to come to Cornwall, 300 miles from the centre of our commerce, when there are areas receiving the same assistance that are within seven, six or five or even half a mile?
We realise that our Government's assistance is limited, so one of the chief worries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, is that we have lost access to Euro-money. The most important aspect of that for us is water money. For a while, it has been easier to get money from the European Community to help the water infrastructure in my county than it has been to get water from the reservoirs. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that to cut one third of my county off from the Euro-loans that have been giving it some hope for the rebuilding of its water and sewerage system is a sad blow.
The reality of what has happened — I can hardly believe it—is that the county with the fewest women in employment in Great Britain, with over 20 per cent. of its male population unemployed and with the lowest wage rate in Great Britain has lost development status for a third of its area. That is amazing and people in the county find it so. The more one studies this review, the more one feels that a group of fifth formers could have done a rather better job if they had spent a whole afternoon on it, using the available statistics in the Library, let alone what may be available to the Department. This is the most childlike response to the problem.
The Government cannot say that they did not know all the facts that I have set out, because the submission by the Cornwall county council includes them all. Therefore, there are two possibilities. One is that the submission simply was not read, studied, checked and thought through. The second is that all the figures were brought to the attention of the Minister, but then they were ignored, and it was decided that the only thing that counted was the travel-to-work area, and that the bare statistics available to the Government were all that mattered. I do not know which is the most charitable assumption to make—that the facts were not read or that that the Department chose to ignore the reality. However, there is enormous dissatisfaction in my county about what has happened.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Is it possible for us to have access to European money through the rural designation? That would not solve all the problem, but it would help a large proportion of it. I look forward to detailed answers on those observations, if not now, then in correspondence.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear that there is a wish for a delegation to come up from the west country to discuss these points with the hon. Gentleman face to face. The figures are known to the Under-Secretary of State, and he has received the county's submission. He has heard that my county was rejected. All he has to do is go to the files and open them at the right page, and he will be able to relate the rational, humane, sensible arguments that persuaded the Government to take this decision.
The Under-Secretary of State can give a detailed answer tonight, because the review took a year to


complete, and the arguments and reasons must be available. I suspect that the best I can hope for is a letter arguing the points and the reception of a delegation from my county. We shall certainly look forward to that delegation. I look forward also to hearing the comments by the Under-Secretary of State.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his continuing and uncanny luck in the ballots. On 7 December, the hon. Gentleman tabled a private Member's motion. That motion was drawn third, and, unfortunately, it did not reach a debate. Only 12 days later, he has repeated that remarkable feat.

Mr. Penhaligon: The Lord is on our side.

Mr. Trippier: In the spirit of charity, and as this is the season of good will, I am anxious to extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and to make it clear that his feat was remarkable.
I welcome the opportunity to explain to the House, and especially to the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), the basis of the new assisted area map. I recognise from their speeches—because the hon. Gentlemen are vociferous on behalf of their constituents, we are accustomed to hearing such statements — that they are upset about the recent announcement. Obviously, it is impossible, when dealing with regional policy, to please everyone. Sometimes I wonder, because I have had such a close involvement in this matter, whether one makes as many enemies as friends.
This opportunity to explain the basis of the new assisted areas map is welcome, because misunderstanding is rife. Whether the misunderstanding is genuine or wilful is immaterial, as, in the confusion that abounds, many seem to have come to believe that the new map is biased—although which way it is thought to be biased is never made clear. Certainly the bias is not in favour of this Administration. Thirty-two travel-to-work areas which were formerly assisted areas are excluded from the new map. The exclusions affect 41 hon. Members, and, of those 32 are Conservative Members.
Leaving aside the question of bias, how much of the country has been affected? The travel-to-work areas which were previously assisted but which no longer justify preferential treatment over the rest of the country cover less than 3 per cent. of the working population. By contrast, travel-to-work areas covering more than 10 per cent. of the working population have been brought into the new map. In fact, there has been a major increase in the coverage of the assisted areas map—an increase made possible by the support available from the European regional development fund.
The assisted areas map sets the geographical limits of our regional industrial policy. As we said in our White Paper "Regional Industrial Development", published a year ago, the aim of regional industrial policy is the reduction of regional imbalances in employment opportunities on a stable long-term basis. In that White Paper we noted that relative annual average unemployment rates had previously been the dominant factor in

previous drawings of the asssited areas map. We recognised that there would be merit—we made this clear in the White Paper—in taking a more measured account of other factors, such as industrial infrastructure, an overdependence on tradition) industry, peripherality, occupational structure and other available forms of assistance.
Despite the arguments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, we did not declare that the policy would concentrate aid on areas suffering the highest levels of long-term unemployment. However, we invited views on the criteria to which we had referred in the White Paper, and received them in more than 300 of the submissions that were sent to my Department. The support for continuing to have unemployment as the main criterion was overwhelming. Those arguing that long-term unemployment was an appropriate additional factor amounted to 18 per cent. — fewer than those who argued in favour of industrial structure or peripherality.
Taking account of those submissions, and strictly in accordance with the aims of the policy, our decisions on the map were based solely on areas' relative need for current and future employment opportunities. The main criterion was relative annual average unemployment rates. Relative long-term unemployment was also taken into account, although it should be noted that this is highly correlated to current unemployment. The coefficient of correlation is 0·92 per cent.
In making our decisions on the map, we also took account of factors such as, first, the relative pressures for new job opportunities expected to result from the varying age structure of the population in different parts of the country; and we also recognised that this may be affected by changes in local economic activity rates; secondly, areas' differing industrial structure and how this may put present employment at risk; thirdly, the occupations and skills of the population as they reflect the quality of local employment opportunities and the pool of entrepreneurial talent,; and fourthly, handicaps to economic recovery, such as great distances from main markets and peripherality and the general trend of industry to move out of the densely populated inner cities.
All those factors are objective criteria, but their relative importance is essentially subjective. We considered in great depth the scope for using a synthetic index, but concluded that no single index was capable of reflecting adequately the relative needs of areas, especially as account also needed to be taken of the relative positions of neighbouring areas.
Within travel-to-work areas there can be wide variations. I take and am fully aware of the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that I took part in downgrading four towns in my constituency. That is courage. One town has unemployment far higher than the area that he has been describing.
I understand that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed questions the use of travel-to-work areas as the building blocks for the assisted areas map. The building blocks used by successive Governments have been travel-to-work areas. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not for convenence that we use travel-to-work areas—far from it. People do not observe administrative boundaries when looking for or travelling to work. Therefore, it would


not be sensible, and certainly it would not be cost-effective, for regional industrial policy to be based on administrative boundaries.
Successive Governments have used travel-to-work areas as the building blocks for their assisted areas map. We consider them to be the best basis as they are the closest available approximations to self-contained labour markets covering the whole country. For areas that fall well short of being self-contained, the relationship between unemployment and job opportunities is greatly affected by the situation in adjoining areas—too greatly for such areas to be useful as the basis for a cost-effective regional industrial policy aimed at reducing the disparities in levels of unemployment to which I referred before.
Furthermore, TTWAs are the smallest units for which nationally comparable unemployment rates are available. These unemployment rates are calculated for an area by dividing the number of unemployed who live there by the sum of the employees who work there and the number of unemployed who live there. This rate could be misleading for areas with a substantial commuting inflow or outflow. For example, for an inner city with a substantial commuting inflow, the rate would be artifically deflated by the many non-residents working there. Numbers of unemployed are known for various other areas right down to wards, but the ratio of unemployed to total residents does not give nationally comparable figures when calculated for areas that do not take into account normal commuting patterns. Such ratios are useful as indicators of social conditions in an area and how these are changing.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister know the current unemployment rate for the Amble employment exchange area?

Mr. Trippier: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has referred to it this evening. He referred to it also when he brought his delegation to see me. I emphasise once more that there is a town within my constituency where unemployment is far higher than in the Amble employment exchange area, and it is just as widespread geographically as the area in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Travel-to-work areas have to cover a self-contained labour market area. The hon. Gentleman is known to be a fair man, and I am sure that he will accept that there will be critics of whatever assisted area map the Government produce and of whatever criteria we use. Those who fall below the line, as it were, will be dissatisfied and critical of any system, whereas those who are above the line, as the hon . Gentleman was with his constituency prior to the recent review, are well satisfied. As a result of the recent review, the coverage of the map throughout the United Kingdom is far greater than it was.
Regional industrial policy is about employment opportunities, and the unemployment data for the assisted areas map should be the best available measures of the local mismatch between labour supply and demand. In practice, it is not possible to divide the country into entirely separate labour market areas such that no one commutes across the boundaries of those areas. The Department's travel-to-work areas are the best approximation to such areas which cover the whole country.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has referred to variations within travel-to-work areas. It would be surprising if they were homogenous. Our policy is based on the full recognition that any increase in jobs in

a depressed area is likely to be taken up by residents of nearby prosperous areas. Regional industrial policy is not an appropriate instrument for tackling the problems of unemployment black spots. To be cost-effective, regional industrial policy needs to take account of the need for further employment opportunities across the area in which it is most likely that any new jobs will go to its residents.
The preparation of the new travel-to-work areas used 1981 census data so as to be as statistically valid as possible within England, Scotland and Wales. The basic criteria used were that at least three quarters of each area's residents should work in the area and that at least three quarters of the jobs in the area be taken by its residents, with slightly lower rates of self-containment being accepted for large areas.
The hon. Member has stated his belief — this followed the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry — that the travel-to-work areas were drawn up in a slapdash manner
by somebody sitting behind a desk in London". — [Official Report, 28 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 940.]
Nothing could be further from the truth, and I shall explain why. The travel-to-work area boundaries were first drafted by the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies at Newcastle university, which may surprise the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Those sitting behind their desks in London then sought the advice of those with local knowledge, particularly on any recent local developments that could have led to changes in travel patterns since the census. I am sure that that point will be of great interest to the hon. Member for Truro.
The time available for comments was limited as we wanted the new travel-to-work area boundaries for the new map of assisted areas so that we could end as soon as possible the uncertainty that precedes change. However, I understand that many useful and detailed comments were received and that all the new information was assessed alongside the census data to see whether the changes were on a scale to warrant modification of the draft boundaries; and in several cases changes were made in the light of that new information.
I understand also that many suggestions were made for alternative areas, which were assessed against the self-containment criteria, and that changes were made to follow district boundaries more closely where that could be done without affecting the validity of the travel-to-work areas. I fully appreciate the concern of hon. Members whose constituencies are no longer included in the map of assisted areas.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister recognise how far all that verbiage is from the reality of the travel-to-work area that we are talking about— Alnwick and Amble? It is 50 miles across, and there is no public transport across it. More people commute to jobs over the boundary immediately to the south of Amble between Amble and the development area than commute across that enormous travel-to-work area.

Mr. Trippier: I am afraid that that applies in many other areas that have been covered by the boundary drawn under the travel-to-work area map. The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing the points that he put fairly to me when he came to see me with the delegation. I emphasised then, and I repeat, that the responsibility for the new travel-to-work area map is in fact not that of the Department of Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman knows that full


well. We were waiting for the map to come from the Department of Employment, which was responsible for drawing it up. I am only sorry that the map took so long, although the census was taken in 1981. None the less, we had already committed ourselves to working on the travel-to-work area map, and, as I have already mentioned, it says so in the White Paper that we published 12 months ago.
I fully understand the concern expressed by, the hon. Members for Truro and for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I can assure them that we looked carefully at all such areas' cases for assistance to see whether they merited continued preferential treatment over the rest of the country. But, even with the substantially wider coverage of the new map, we could not justify continuing to assist all the areas that have benefited in the past.
However, we have brought in generous transitional provisions to ease the downgrading, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was kind enough to mention. In particular, all applications for regional selective assistance received before the change will be negotiated on the basis of the old map for a further four months. Also, the European Commission will continue to accept applications for the European regional development fund quota section until March next year. I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that his local authority's officers are working hard to make sure that their application is in time.

Mr. Penhaligon: The Minister has explained the situation, and it is interesting to hear about the decisions that have been made, but was attention paid to the fact that few women in Cornwall are in work, or did the Government examine purely the out-of-work figures? I think that I demonstrated beyond any doubt that the two sets of figures are by no means the same thing. The fact is that the Government have left out one third of the county with the fewest women in work anywhere in Britain.

Mr. Trippier: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman laid great emphasis on that. I do not know whether this helps, but, even when we looked at various synthetic indexes to see whether any one of them might apply, we looked at male and female unemployment together. We did not separate them. If one started on that, I do not know where it would end.
We believe that it had been a mistake on the part of successive Governments in the past to look only at unemployment levels and, in the submissions that we received in response to the White Paper published a year ago, the vast majority of people agreed with us.
In conclusion, I am confident that the House will agree that, with the new structure of regional industrial incentives, the Government have set about achieving the stated objective of reducing imbalances in regional employment opportunities in the most sensible manner possible.

National Union of Mineworkers (Sequestration)

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The cardinal purpose of this debate is to obtain some positive answers from the Government, who so far have failed to answer clearly and definitively the questions raised by the Opposition.
The Government's infamous industrial relations legislation left a bitter taste in the mouths of many of us. The Government have sought to impose on the British trade union movement, and now exclusively on the miners, a rule of law which undermines the traditional openness and flexibility of industrial relations and negotiations with Government, industry and the trade union movement.
We are witnessing, and bitterly experiencing, probably the longest major strike in Britain this century. The miners' strike of 1984 is potentially the miners' strike of 1985, as the Government's indifference to the crisis in the coal industry in now apparent to everyone in the country —ordinary people as well as politicians.
The handling of the strike in legal terms is significant, in that the rule of law is being used against the legitimate views and actions of a trade union aspiring to fulfil the aims and objectives of its members as represented in its leadership. A paramount symptom is the Government's attempt to suppress the rights of that union and its members, with all the vigour that they can muster.
The law on sequestration and the apparently prejudiced interpretation of it by the courts is rapidly leading to the erosion of civil liberties. In the view of many of us, that will be the result of court decisions based on bad law.
In a democracy, it is imperative to strike a balance between the maintenance of public order and the legitimate right to express dissent. During the miners' strike, the law has been used to upset the traditional balance and to establish the right of the forces of law to go to extreme lengths. I am sure that during the debate my hon. Friends will give examples of civil conflict in the coal fields. There is an abundance—an encyclopaedia—of evidence that civil liberties have been trampled upon by certain actions taken in the name of the law. A climate of opinion has been created in which it is felt that such actions can be justified. Acting either on direct instructions or on some weird interpretation of the law, the police have taken that view in relation to the miners.
One does not need much imagination to see how the same attitude could be extended to other constitutional situations. At present, the miners happen to be regarded by the public as an unreasonable, dictatorial and unconstitutional force that is threatening civil law and moving towards civil disorder. People take that view because that is how the media and Government spokesmen have presented the situation. Public opinion is easily moulded by the media. It is very responsive to what the media present as normal. The presentation of certain selected items and issues by the media always has a receptive audience. That is called "normalisation".
The amount of media time given to Government spokesmen can easily influence people in the desired way. It can certainly be done; it is done. Regardless of the current dispute, we should be aware of the power of Government to manipulate public opinion through the media.
There is no point in democracy unless it can safeguard civil liberties. That is what is at issue now—not pit closures or the 5·2 per cent. The whole perspective has been changed by the Government, acting through the media. They have conditioned the minds of ordinary people to believe that there is now an aggressive force within the nation that chooses to ignore the whole spectrum of British law.
What is an economic pit? How is an economic pit to be defined? I am not talking in terms of pounds and pence, or in terms of the criterion of profits before people. Nor shall I talk about the NCB's accounting system. I worked for the NCB for 30 years, so I know about it. I worked as a unit engineer at the pits. Even there, we manipulated the figures. The figures were not distorted or untrue. As with the media, it was a matter of presentation. It is quite easy to do. The NCB does it when it fiddles the books.

Mr. Don Dixon: In the same way, the Secretary of State for the Environment has just cut the money for housing by £2 billion while saying that he is increasing the amount available.

Mr. Cunliffe: The yardstick is the same. We are told that there are uneconomic local government units.
It must be more expensive to make a miner redundant than to invest properly in the coal industry. If the Government and the NCB failed to close the 20 pits, the cost to the NCB in subsidies would be £275 million per annum. If they are closed, the Government will lose a maximum of £480 million a year in redundancy payments, supplementary benefit and lost tax revenue. That ignores the additional cost of job losses in industries that supply the mining industry. All the evidence about the economic aspects of the dispute is there to be examined.
Anyone who knows the industry knows that £130 million a year is spent on pensions for past employees and that there is a subsidence charge of £245 million a year. Those charges have nothing whatever to do with operating and production costs. The board has always made an operating profit. I had to make my returns from various collieries on that basis. Overhead costs and Government interest charges were always dealth with on the other side of the page. That was the right way. The Government must understand that, on that basis, even last year with the overtime ban which lasted six weeks the board still made a profit of £1 million.
The Central Electricity Generating Board pays 40 per cent. less for coal than for oil. Examination of how the NCB books are distorted shows how greatly coal is undervalued. At the stroke of an accountant's pen, the figures are made correct. If the NCB sold its coal to the electricity board 20 per cent. rather than 40 per cent. cheaper than oil, it would make a profit of £1·1 billion year. That is the real perspective. It should also be borne in mind that it is twice as expensive to force a miner on to the dole as it is to keep him in work in a so-called uneconomic pit. Such facts are unchallengeable. Some of us know the system and have worked it. We know that what the board is presenting is fictitious, unreliable and biased. It is also predictable, because of Government interference.
We should also consider the reduction of spending capacity that will result from the redundancy of 20,000 miners. It is forecast, however, that we will need another 40,000 miners by the end of the century. I do not know

what will happen to the mining stock between now and then. If anyone believes that it is possible to go out on the streets tomorrow and recruit miners and train them in 16 weeks, he believes nonsense. Miners are generated. They stay in families and go from generation to generation. If we destroy that basic intake from mining families and mining communities, we shall create a vacuum that will never be filled. Someone must reckon up that cost. I do not want to talk about training schemes, but they will be no substitute for the generation of miners that we have always known.
The cost of the dispute in lost production, in steel, in rail, in electricity, in tax payments and in policing costs is already close on £4 billion. If common sense does not prevail and if there is not an honourable settlement which is based on what we believe was a genuine attempt by the NUM to secure a future for mining families, I venture to suggest that it would be foolhardy and utter nonsense to ignore the economic facts that I have outlined. If we are not careful, these imaginary problems will remain for the rest of this year and throughout 1985.
I notice that not one energy Minister is present this evening. They again display their total indifference because of the closed-shop attitude of the board in negotiations. One of the Government's legal representatives—the Solicitor-General—will reply, and to him I say that, regardless of legal interpretation, it is not difficult to understand what bad law has done. The miners' case is as great and strong as ever, and it will be so in the future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I wish to help the House and I do not want to restrict debate if I can help it, but I remind hon. Members that the subject we are discussing is Price Waterhouse and the sequestration of NUM assets. Hon. Members should relate their remarks to the topic before the House, and no doubt the Minister will reply accordingly.

Mr. John Morris: We have heard the impassioned voice of the coalfield, and as the grandson of a miner I fully understand the feeling in our mining communities as expressed in the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe).
The Attorney-General did neither his case nor himself justice when, under Opposition pressure, he made his statement to the House on 11 December this year. The House of Commons is entitled to an explanation. The Attorney-General is answerable to this House, and it was because he failed to give a proper explanation, and adequately to answer the questions put to him, that my hon. Friends have sought this debate.
I hope that, for the future, Law Officers will learn that the House will not be brushed on one side. If anything novel or extraordinary has to be done, it is much easier to come clean and to explain to the House at the earliest opportunity what the Government are doing.
Instead, the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to attack me, and ignored every question that I put to him. I readily forgive him for not following every utterance I have made on television and radio and in the press, particularly as many of them emanated from Cardiff, but I have gone to the trouble of listening again to one of the


tapes, when I said that whoever was in breach of the law — be he a picket or a policeman—must be answerable for that breach.
I quoted the words of Lord Atkin, and I did so even though I forgive the Attorney-General for not knowing everything I have said elsewhere. However, I do not forgive him readily for not recalling that I told the House:
The rule of law is the same for everyone",
and I quoted the memorable words of Lord Atkin who in the dark days of war in 1941 said:
In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace".
It is not incumbent on me or any of my hon. Friends to repeat like parrots every utterance that we make of our regard and respect for the role of law. I hope that the Solicitor-General will recognise that tonight.
In his attack upon me, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General missed the whole point of our concern. As I said on 11 December, there may be a hypothetical or a real need to protect the courts. We were concerned, first, about the basis for his actions. Secondly, assuming that the Attorney-General had the power, was it right for him to do it? Although there may have been advantages, was it not conceivable that the disadvantages of his actions outweighed the advantages? The Attorney-General did not throw any light on the basis for his actions. If our courts need to be protected, I believe that there must be a proper basis for their protection. Our concern relates to the basis for the actions of the Attorney-General.
The written answer which I received last Friday from the Attorney-General contained the first utterance that his actions were based upon the common law. The common law is based upon precedent. It cannot be made up. We should like to be told whether any precedents have been discovered since the exchange on 11 December for the actions which have been taken. Why are the Government so coy? Why did we have to wait until last Friday for the first reference by any Minister to the fact that the actions of the Attorney-General were based upon common law? No reference was made to this fact in any answer which the Attorney-General gave to the House.
Although there may, therefore, be a power to grant an indemnity under the common law, I was also told last Friday that, without statutory authority, the common law cannot be activated in order to pay out money under the indemnity. I should like to know how that will be provided. I come back to the original question: have the Government been able to discover throughout the long history of this country any precedents for this indemnity?
I should also like to know whether there was any real need for this action. The senior partner in Price Waterhouse said that the firm did not ask for the indemnity and that this indemnity was unsolicited. The Attorney-General has told the House that he made inquiries about what had happened and discovered that Price Waterhouse had asked the court whether there were any funds. Price Waterhouse were told that there were no funds, and they seemed to be content.
It has been repeated time after time that neither Mr. Justice Nicholls nor Price Waterhouse approached the Attorney-General. Therefore, what evidence was there—I hope the Solicitor-General will face up to this—that

the orders of the court might, in the words of the Attorney-General, be frustrated? Perhaps we might be told the full extent of the property which Price Waterhouse have seized— not only the money in the bank but the houses and other property owned by the National Union of Mineworkers.
Many of my hon. Friends put down early-day motion 233 regretting the fact that the Attorney-General referred to Price Waterhouse as an
ordinary commercial firm who are liable to run out of money".
Price Waterhouse is the third largest accountancy firm in the United Kingdom, with an annual income from fees of over £60 million. They are discussing an amalgamation with Deloitte Haskins and Sells, the second largest accountancy firm in the United Kingdom, whose annual income from fees is also over £60 million. Price Waterhouse hardly comes into the category of an ordinary commercial firm which is likely to run out of money. I understand that Price Waterhouse are far from happy that the spotlight of the Attorney-General's comments has been turned on them at a crucial stage of the amalgamation negotiations. The Solicitor-General laughs, but I am sure that he if speaks to the senior partners of Price Waterhouse they will confirm what I have said.
Price Waterhouse do not act as public benefactors when they are appointed court sequestrators. They do it for money, on an ordinary commercial basis, and they are paid on a solicitor-client basis. They are not there because they love to act as sequestrators. There is other work that they could do to earn their £60 million a year. They enter into it with their eyes fully open and, on that basis, there was hardly any need for the Attorney-General to have come to their aid on the first inquiry about whether the court had any money.
The Attorney-General told the House on 11 December that Price Waterhouse went to the court and were told that there were no funds and that it' seemed "so simple" to him — the order of the court should be enforced. He said:
As guardian of the public interest, I was the only person who could do that,."—[Official Report, 11 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 929.]
We have to be satisfied whether, in issuing unsolicited and unprecedented indemnities, the Attorney-General has not jumped the gun. Has he not perhaps acted a little impetuously? He told the House that he relied on information coming partly from the registrar of the court, as a result of his inquiry, and partly from newspapers. That is a very odd approach for the Attorney-General to adopt when making a crucial and unprecedented decision.
Even more important constitutional matters than the action of the Attorney-General arise in this context. Will his action be a precedent for further involvement by him in a range of civil litigation? If there is a matrimonial case in which large funds have been moved out of the courts' jurisdiction—as they are, from time to time—will the Attorney-General come to the aid of the party—who is denied his rights when the order of the court is frustrated? The pleasures of having the Attorney-General's indemnity should apply to all; the law should be the same for everyone. Or is this a one-off exercise, applying only to litigation involving the NUM? Is that union being singled out for the use of the Attorney-General's new-found power of indemnity, or can everyone involved in civil litigation expect the same pleasures and privileges?
If there is to be a widespread repetition of the Attorney-General's action, presumably we can expect the Estimates


to include a token provision of £1 to cover the possibility of future incursions by the Attorney-General into indemnity in civil litigation.
My final point relates to the Attorney-General's judgment in the matter. Given that this is current litigation in a highly contentious area and in a politically highly charged atmosphere, was it prudent of the Attorney-General to intervene at this stage? If there were clear and unambiguous evidence that the court's will would be frustrated, because, for example, this or any other firm was not willing to act as sequestrators, the position might be different. But, given the flimsy evidence before us and the Government's failure to present their case, the real danger is that the Attorney-General has been unnecessarily involved in civil litigation and has created a precedent for the future; we know not where it will stop.
That is what concerns me. I refer to the cherished concept of the independence of the Attorney-General's office and to the danger of tarnishing it. I value the independence of the judiciary. I set out my views about the dangers of tarnishing that in a recent article in The Times. In the same way, I value the Attorney-General's independence. With hindsight, was it wise or prudent of the Attorney-General to act? I am reminded of a war slogan "Was your journey really necessary?" In the same way, on the evidence before us, were the Attorney-General's actions really necessary?

Mr. Alan Rogers: This case is of great interest, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has outlined the main legal issues involved. In particular, he referred to the question of the impartiality of our Law Officers. He posed them some very interesting questions, some of the answers to which may be set out in legal terms. But while those answers are important in that they will form part of the continuing struggle that we have to put up against the Government, we know what they are. After all, the Government are motivated not by any need or desire to maintain the law, but by blind hatred for the mining community.
The Conservative party does not like the mining community. It is determined to break the NUM, and it has taken this opportunity to do so in whatever way it can. It cannot win the economic argument or any other argument, so it has tried to use the law to bludgeon coal miners into returning to work. Thus, the Law Officers' actions are motivated not by the need to carry out the law impartially, but by blind dogma.
The coal mining community is participating in one of the most heroic actions that any group has participated in this century. I say "heroic", because those people are looking not for money to line their pockets—the sort of thing that Conservative Members would probably understand—or advantage or to improve their working conditions, but for protection of their communities and jobs. It is a pity that Conservative Members do not act as patriotically as them. I cannot see it as anything other than a heroic fight.
Perhaps I am slightly conditioned by my recollections, especially at this time of the year. As a young boy I used to walk with my father over the mountains from a pit village called Penybryn down past the coal owner's house to a small village in the next valley. We went to collect the Christmas poultry. There was a sense of unreality as

one walked into that small village. The first thing that one noticed was that there were no men. There were a lot of women, but no men. The name of the village was Senghenydd. Those days were brought back to me quite graphically when I received a Christmas card from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). It says:
Lest we forget. From Marion and Ray Powell.
On the inside is something written from a friend of mine called Les Gassor, the chairman of an NUM lodge. It is entitled "The price of coal", and says:
71 years ago, on OCT 14th 1913, an explosion at the great UNIVERSAL COLLIERY, SENGHENYDD, claimed the lives of 440 men and boys.
That was every male in the village.
The manager of the mine was found guilty of 8 charges of failure to carry out his statutory duties and he was fined £24·5½p per life. The COAL COMPANY was found innocent of any blame, but after pressure from the SOUTH WALES MINERS FEDN, the Inspector of Mines filed an appeal. In 1915 the Court of the King's bench allowed the appeal on one charge and sent the case back to the Magistrates Court for conviction. In February 1916, 3 years after the explosion, the same magistrates found the COMPANY GUILTY and fined them £10. Who looked after the widows and orphans left behind? The local community of course, just as they are now when struggle and strife have taken the place of grief and sorrow in our area. Those who criticise the lack of respect for the law shown by strikers in our fight to save jobs, should remember that we have never had justice in the whole history of our Trade Unions
and of our relationships with the law.
The price of coal is one which has been paid heavily by our communities. A miner's life is a fight for existence every time he leaves home to start his shift in the pit and is more of a struggle now than ever when the Government wishes to cast him and his family on the scrap-heap for short-term, short-sighted `economic' reasons.
That was written by Les Gassor, a striking miner, in 1984.
I remember that village. I remember my father going to work. I remember waiting and hoping that he would come home. I remember my brother, who now lives in Dorking and who was a pit overman, being badly crushed when he went to bring out a boy from the village who was trapped in the coal. Those people have an enormous sense of togetherness and community.
I am afraid that Conservative Members just do not understand the miners and the mining community. They do not understand that they are prepared to suffer nine months of continuous hardship, not for any selfish reasons, not to line their pockets, but simply to protect their homes and communities. They were the same miners who, in 1916 and 1917, rallied to the flag and laid down their lives by their thousands in the trenches of France, as evidenced by war memorials in every mining village in south Wales.
During the last war miners gave their all to provide the energy to keep this country going to push back the bounds of Fascism that is now coming back to Britain. They were miners who, in 1948, after the industry was nationalised, gave their all and produced reduced-price energy in order to revitalise and recharge this country so that it could recover from the war. If they had had the economic price of coal then, they would have built up so much capital that they would never have had to borrow a single penny. But they provided cheap energy for the country because they were taken into public ownership. Perhaps they saw themselves as public servants. The union also co-operated, foolishly in my view, because at the end of the day it has turned out that, although the present leader of the NUM warned miners many years ago of what would happen, his


voice went unheeded. He is castigated now and subject to the utmost vilification, but if his views had been followed 10 years ago, we might not have been in this mess today.
The miners inherited a bankrupt industry in 1948. In 1919 the Sankey commission, which was set up because of the abuse of the coal industry by the coal owners during the first world war, said that our coal was so vital a resource that it was too precious to leave in the hands of private industry. Yet, it was more than 30 years before it was taken into public ownership.
I am only sad that the Government are not loyal to people who have given enormous service to the country. The Government are unpatriotic and will eventually sell everyone down the river for a quick buck. They will never understand the miners or the mining communities. That is why they will never beat them. They can bludgeon the miners back to work, sequestrate their union's funds and starve their children, but they will never beat them.

Mr. Martin Redmond: The debate is about Price Waterhouse. We must consider the sinister reasons why it has entered into the dispute. It gives me no pleasure to speak about the miners' strike and the sequestration of their union's funds. There should not have been a strike. The Government, for their own motives, brought the strike about, which brought Price Waterhouse on to the scene. There was no need for the strike, and therefore the responsibility must rest firmly on the shoulders of the Government.
When I was asked what the lads hoped to gain by striking, I said that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose because the strike was justified by the Government's entrenched long-term views about the coal industry. The Government have pursued and are pursuing short-term policies that are selling the nation down the river. Until such time as they consider the long-term needs of the country, we shall stumble from crisis to crisis.
I now turn to Mac the Knife. A great deal has been said about concessions that the Coal Board has made. The Coal Board has not moved one inch from day one of the strike. The introduction of Price Waterhouse into the dispute was therefore inevitable.
NACODS held a ballot. As a result of that, the Government said that the National Union of Mineworkers should accept what had been offered to NACODS. It was to receive its money and to be offered a talking shop when a pit was to be closed. The pit review and the colliery review closure procedure needs to be helped. That is at the heart of the strike. The Coal Board will decide to shut a pit, it will announce it to the union, and the union must then go through the charade of meeting the people who took the original decision to close the pit.
I do not know many instances where the board has back-pedalled. It may have changed its position slightly with regard to some development work, but apart from that it has not shifted. I have sat on the area consultative committee in Doncaster for many years. The lads said, rightly, that such local consultative committees are nothing but talking shops, because, at the end of the day, the Coal Board will make the decision, irrespective of how well the lads have presented their case. The Secretary of State for Energy announces to all who will listen that

Scargill will not move from his position. What he should do is to tell Mac the Knife not only to shift his position but to get on the next boat to America.
The Government have not been honest about their long-term plans for the industry. If they are allowed to proceed on the course that they have taken, I envisage an industry with no more than 65,000 to 70,000 men producing 70 million tonnes of coal from a few super-pits. It is obvious that that policy will be pursued, because the Government are always saying that market forces should dominate our industries. If market forces are allowed to dominate, we must also take into account the balance of payments. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken into account the amount that Price Waterhouse will spend in Europe on trying to return the NUM funds?
The Coal Board has announced the sacking of 450 men for vandalising pit property. I believe that the Secretary of State for Energy and the Government should resign, because they are causing more damage to the industry than are any lads back in the coalfields. We should consider the damage that the Government and Price Waterhouse are causing in our communities. The long-term plans about which the Government talk in relation to "Plan for Coal" are not worth a light unless they are geared to an energy policy. In 1978, there were posters on the billboards saying to the lads, "The industry needs you, and you will have a long and happy future with us."
It should not be for the Coal Board or the Government to decide whether a pit should close. We should have an independent panel to which both sides could present their cases. If the Government and the Coal Board are so convinced that what they say is correct, that panel will support them. When one takes into account all the policies, and how they affect the quality of life, there is obviously no case for pit closures.
Last Wednesday, the Attorney-General gave the worst performance of any Tory Minister— it was atrocious. One wonders what the connection is between the Attorney-General, the Government and Price Waterhouse. I do not doubt that when the historians are writing about this dispute, they will dig out something to show the link. I wonder whether it is the old boy's network, because at one stage Price Waterhouse used to be involved with the Government. It could be that the old boys are working together to add a little extra money to the millions that they already make.

Mr. Rogers: In time for Christmas.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend is right.
The Attorney-General said that the Government were not creating a precedent that would pass on from one act of vandalism to another. I wonder whether he will have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and advise him to take some VAT off the pop record that was made for Ethiopia. It is a pity that compassion and the crocodile tears that one sees on the Tory Benches on that matter do not come through in reality and in practice here. Miners who were made redundant before the strike began, and whose notice ended after the strike had started, have found that there is no compassion or understanding for them.
Great play has been made about the pit violence. I have not heard any condemnation from the Tory Benches of police violence; not even a question mark has been raised about what happens in our coalfields. In Toxteth there was a public inquiry, but in Armthorpe, a pit village where the


police behaved like a set of hooligans, nothing whatsoever happened. There seems to be a sinister central control in this dispute. On the point about breaking the law, I wonder whether the Prime Minister will comply with the EEC ruling and pay the milk fines that are due from this country—or is she above that law?
Does the Solicitor-General agree that the hardships and humiliation that the suffragettes suffered to ensure that women got the vote were worth while? If they had not taken such action, this country might have been better off, because we would not have had this Prime Minister.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: This is an important debate, and, with great respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) who is a master of the understatement and of discretion, it is not a debate about minor indiscretions by the Attorney-General. It is not a debate in which we say to him, with hindsight, that he could have done differently. We are debating a cold attack on the law of Parliament and the constitution by the Attorney-General.
When I first saw the Supplementary Estimates in the Red Book concerning this so-called token provision for sequestration, I immediately said to myself, both as a barrister and a member of the Treasury Select Committee, that the provisions were illegal. My subsequent inquiries served to reveal the truth of that.
My first instinct was to ask: what is the authority for these provisions? I knew that there was no statutory authority because I had seen that problem before when I was on the Treasury Select Committee. I asked a journalist whether he could give me the Downing street briefing about what had happened. The journalist illegally provided me with that briefing. The briefing, dated Monday 10 December, was issued at 12·5 pm by Mr. Bernard Ingham, the Prime Minister's press secretary. The briefing stated:
The legal powers were given under the common law powers of the Crown. The Crown has the same freedom as any other individual to give an indemnity … Since the Crown is dependent upon parliament to vote the necessary funds, it has been agreed between the Committee of Public Accounts and the Treasury that where a need to incur contingent commitments arises from a continuing policy requirement, powers should be conferred by statute. However, when giving an indemnity is a one-off exercise it is proper to rely on the Appropriations Act to provide the funds.
The Appropriations Act is a camouflage for illegality in this case.
I am sorry that the Attorney-General is ill and so is not present to hear the condign criticism that is justly made of him on this occasion. I shall advance four arguments. First, I know, from my position on the Treasury Select Committee, that no attempt should be made to extend common law powers into areas in which they do not properly belong, into unconvential areas and into areas where they would not be properly understood. That must be a definitional equation, because the purpose of common law powers is to be conventional and understood. In this case, the powers are not conventional and are not understood by hon. Members or individuals outside the House.
Secondly, for as long as anyone can remember, it has been the practice that any common law powers arrived at under the Crown prerogative should not be used in

politically contentious cases. It is impossible to conceive of the use of the powers of the Crown prerogative in a more politically contentious matter, so their use stands squarely outside the conventinal use of such powers by the House.
Thirdly, questions have been asked about the precedents in this case. I have looked at all the precedents since time immemorial—or at least the year 1189—and there are no precedents in this case.
The fourth argument involves the analogy used by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). If, by some chance, the Chancellor lent me some money, I refused to pay him back, he then took legal action, I salted my money away abroad and sequestrators were sent in, no hon. Member or anyone outside the House in his right mind would suggest that the Attorney-General would have powers under the Crown prerogative to make token provision for sequestrators. That is the fundamental abuse of the civil law, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
The Attorney-General has confused the use of his powers. He has powers to advise the Government but does not have powers to advise the Conservative party for the purposes of political advantage. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done in this case. The Attorney-General has advised the Conservative party on how to gain political advancement and, in the process, he has abused the law, parliamentary sovereignty and the Constitution.
What is worrying is that the Attorney-General did not act on a one-off basis; this is part of a pattern followed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is why it is all the more important for hon. Members to stand up and say, "No, we have had enough of this Attorney-General and the abuse of these powers."
We all remember sanctions busting in Rhodesia. I am one of about half a dozen people in this country who have seen the original files. I know about law breaking by politicians, civil servants and Sir Frank MacFadyen. I remember this Attorney-General coming here and saying that he supported the Director of Public Prosecutions in not prosecuting those people because some of them had retired and it would be difficult to obtain the evidence.
When I was at the Bar, no one ever came up to me and said, "Don't bother, Mr. Sedgemore. I understand that your client has retired," or "It will be difficult to get the evidence." That was a similar abuse of the law. We all remember that only last November, when The Observer published a series of articles about waste at the Ministry of Defence, the Attorney-General decided to take action against Mr. Williams and The Observer. What is worse, those of us who know remember the Attorney-General going to the Garrick club and saying that he would "get The Observer". He wanted "to get" The Observer because the Prime Minister was being attacked over Oman. That is a disgraceful, shameful abuse of the Attorney-General's power.
We cannot have the Attorney-General, once over sanctions busting, once over Mr. Williams and The Observer and once over the sequestration by Price Waterhouse, abusing the powers of the courts of this land. That is the Attorney-General. If he were here, the right thing for him to do would be to resign. The right thing for people such as me to do when we go outside the House is to report him to the Inns of Court and say, "We have had


enough." I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you remember reading E. P. Thompson's "Whigs and Hunters" in which he said:
The laws of England were a nuisance, to be bent and manipulated by the ruling classes.
The person who has bent and manipulated the laws of England for too long in the House of Commons over the past six years is the Attorney-General.
What are we to say about Price Waterhouse? It is engaged in a merger with Deloitte Haskins and Sells, which will make it the biggest accountancy firm in the world. The message that must go out from the Conservative Benches and the Attorney-General is that Deloitte Haskins and Sells would probably be unwise to become involved in the kind of political dynamite into which Price Waterhouse is leading it. It will have nothing but trouble from Labour Members, and, if there is a future Labour Government, it will have nothing but trouble from them. It will have trouble from nationalised industries, local authorities, quangos and future Governments. The only decent thing to come out of this whole discreditable and despicable operation will be the ruin of that merger.
We all know that the managing director of Price Waterhouse earns £187,000 a year. It is monstrous that the Attorney-General should seek to indemnify that firm, with its turnover of £60 million per annum, and which pays its director £187,000.
The Attorney-General has debased and demeaned the laws of this country. I am not interested in listening to the Solicitor-General's answer. I do not want to be rude to him, but on occasions like this it would probably be better if we were to adjourn the debate so that the Attorney-General could answer for his misconduct and for the way in which he has debased the laws of this country, our Parliament and the constitution.

Mr. Peter Hardy: This matter may be the responsibility of the Law Officers and one can understand why the Solicitor-General is here, but, as my hon. Friends have already made clear, this debate also has a great deal to do with energy. I rather regret the fact that there are no energy Ministers on the Treasury Bench, because words have been and will be said which suggest that their presence would have been appropriate.
Even though the matter may primarily be one for the Solicitor-General, I regret that there is no one present on the Conservative Benches with any interest in energy, and that there is no Conservative Member to give support and sustenance to the Solicitor-General as he seeks to answer my hon. Friend's charges.
The Government may feel that they have been ingenious. It may be an ingenious adventure or initiative, but if the degree of ingenuity that has been employed in this rather sordid enterprise had been applied at any time during the past 10 long months of dispute, the nation might have been better served. It is almost 10 months since those employed at Cortonwood colliery were told that their colliery would cease to produce coal in five weeks. The Government may be free—I do not know—from the charge of manipulation in this adventure, but they have watched the media manipulating the facts for virtually the whole of the past 10 months and refrained from comment. The chairman, deputy chairman and secretary of the

National Coal Board have made public comments to the effect that the board never proposed that Cortonwood colliery should close in just five weeks. Mr. MacGregor and his deputy, Mr. Cowan, along with the secretary to the board, Mr. Brandrath, in a letter to The Times, claim that it was merely proposed that Cortonwood should be subject to face colliery review procedures. They carefully ignored the fact that Cortonwood was down for cessation of production in five weeks, and the Government allowed them to do so. The Coal Board has deliberately and conveniently forgotten that, and over the ensuing months it has ignored the decision that it knew, and must have known, was made.
The Government have been ingenious in introducing this precedent. I only wish that they had shown ingenuity in ensuring that the truth in this bitter dispute was not allowed conveniently to be forgotten.
Another example of manipulation was when one of my hon. Friends became concerned about speeches made in the House by some of us who represent coalfield communities. He wrote to the chairman and expressed his concern about a case which he had heard presented in the Chamber. He observed that it was astonishing that Elsecar colliery should be closed in the latter part of 1983 and that over a hundred workers from that colliery should be moved to Cortonwood and given a guarantee of five years' work. Ministers are well aware that the reply was, in effect, a denial of a guarantee of five years' work. The deputy chairman wrote to the effect that, far from a guarantee of five years, everyone at Elsecar and Cortonwood knew that Cortonwood had a much shorter life than five years. He knew, as everyone in the board knew and as Treasury Ministers should have known, that the guarantee had been given.
We have had a great deal of ingenuity. There has been this ingenious precedent of paying a company which did not seek to be paid. On the other hand, there has been an absence of any ingenuity that might have brought this bitter dispute to an end. The dispute has continued for months longer than it need have done. There have been months of enormous hardship and embitterment. I do not know, but the dispute may continue for many more months.
If the Government had shown any sensitivity—they have already been accused of a complete lack of it—the strike would not have occurred. Instead of devoting effort to promoting peace, or to trying to assuage the bitterness, which will last for a long time, they have adopted a clever and almost undergraduate approach of providing money to a company which did not ask for it. That will create a dangerous and serious precedent.
I regret that no Department of Energy Ministers are on the Government Front Bench to give moral support to the Solicitor-General. I regret that they are not here to hearken to the calls for sanity that have been and will continue to be made. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are to rely on this sort of adventurism, the nation will sooner or later wake up to the realities that face us.
Nearly 10 months have passed, at the end of which all we can see is this sort of adventure by the Attorney-General, supported by the Solicitor-General, and action that deserves the pen of a latter-day Gilbert and Sullivan. It may provide the material for someone to write a paperback to while away the tedium of a dull journey. It may have filled the headlines of the newspapers and


provided people with comment about the jet-setting life of some City financiers. It does not actually help us one jot or tittle to solve the problem that has dominated the lives of many of us in the House for virtually 10 months. It is the condition of those whom we represent that should command attention from Government, not silly initiatives by people whose titles may almost have stemmed from Gilbert and Sullivan.
I trust that the Solicitor-General will remind his colleagues in government and energy Ministers that, while the Opposition recognise the severity and seriousness of the precedent that is involved, we are concerned about a much greater and deeper reality. It is that to which the Government's ingenuity should be addressed.

Mr. Michael Welsh: In the debate earlier today, a Minister would not allow money to be spent on house building. That was completely wrong, but it is what the Minister decided. In contrast, on 11 December, the Attorney-General was throwing money about like confetti. Is it not strange that only today a Minister objected to money being spent on providing houses for the needy, yet the Attorney-General had plenty of money to throw about to protect those who have plenty of money? It is a strange affair, but that is what happened.
I am sorry that the Attorney-General is ill. He should have been here. The Solicitor-General, who is here in his place, will appreciate that we hope that he gets well quickly—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: There is nothing wrong with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Welsh: No — Opposition Members have compassion, and I hope that we always do. That is very important.
The Attorney-General said that Mr. Justice Nicholls ordered sequestration, and the sequestrators appointed by the court were named on 11 December as Price Waterhouse. That was due to a civil action brought to the courts — Taylor and Foulstone v. the NUM. That is important, because it is the issue that we are debating tonight.
The Attorney-General said that the Government would indemnify. I am not quite sure what that word means. I think that it means that if anybody loses any money, the Government will compensate him. As a layman, I think that that is what it means. The Government will indemnify Price Waterhouse against the costs that it incurs. I think that the Solicitor-General will agree with that. On 11 December there was no reference to Justice Davies. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that only the costs of Price Waterhouse will be indemnified. Nowhere can I find in the Attorney-General's statement any reference to Justice Davies. I think that the Solicitor-General will agree with that.
On 6 December Michael Arnold, senior involvements partner of City accountants Arthur Young McClelland Moores, was appointed as receiver. At no time did the Attorney-General say that the Government would look after that firm. They are only going to look after Price Waterhouse under the appointment of Justice Nicholls. Nothing from Justice Davies will be looked after at all, because that was not mentioned in the statement of 11 December. The appointments and statements of certain

people will be covered, but nothing else. That is important, because what Justice Davies did will cost a lot more. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that the intention is to look after Justice Nicholls but not Justice Davies? If that is so, the costs—at present about f100,000—will have to be divided.
If that is not the position, there is a great gap which needs to be clarified in relation to the Attorney-General's statement, as I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree. I hope that the Solicitor-General will make a statement about that today. If his statement differs from the Attorney-General's statement, it will mean not that the House was misled on 11 December but that all the evidence—the whole truth, as it were—was not given with regard to the support to be given by the Government. I hope that the Solicitor-General will explain exactly what the Government intend to underwrite.
I cannot imagine why the Government decided to support Price Waterhouse—a firm so rich that it could afford to lend the Government money if they got into difficulties. It is strange indeed. I should have liked to ask the Attorney-General about that, but I accept that he is ill and that I therefore cannot do so. If there is a reason for supporting in this way the actions of a legal firm acting on behalf of the law of the land, it is strange indeed that the body against which action is being taken is the National Union of Mineworkers.
Action of such magnitude has never been taken against other unions. I agree that there are other issues on which action could be taken. Indeed, it has been done. The law of the land—not the state—was involved in 1972, in the case of Gold v. the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and in 1973 in the case of Col-Mech Ltd. v. the AUEW. But in those cases the amount at issue was only the amount required by the law. This is the first time that the law of the land has ever attempted to take the entire funds of any institution, and the institution involved just happens to be the NUM.
There are special factors involved in this case, and the action taken has never been taken before. I question the position of the Attorney-General under the law of the land.
What is also vitally important is not what the Attorney-General has done, but what he has not done. With regard to certain issues involving law and order, the Attorney-General has sat back. The Solicitor-General may say that law and order is the Home Secretary's job, but it has been necessary for action to be taken by his Department. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not acted to protect certain issues, when he could have done so. There was the occasion when four policemen invaded the house of an 84-year-old woman in Stainforth in my constituency. That poor beautiful lady weighed about five stone. Nothing was done. The Attorney-General did not take action against any policeman or anyone else. That was a disgrace. The matter could have been taken further, but the lady did not wish it to be.
In the early days of the mining dispute, when there was no trouble, I was in Nottingham when a car was pulled open because the men inside would not wind the window down. The police smashed the windscreen. They could have hurt' those poor miners. I telephoned the chief constable of Nottinghamshire. He was not available. I spoke to the deputy chief constable. I said, "You cannot condone this." He said, "I do." He condoned that violence.


He condoned physical violence, and the Attorney-General was not interested. Yet he should be looking after the nation.
There are ways of complaining about such occurences. The Home Secretary says, "Take it up. Complain. Take them to court. The NUM has plenty of money." The NUM has no money now, so how could anyone sue it? It is embarrassing to hear the Home Secretary tell us to sue the police when the NUM's money has been taken.
I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a direct question. Did the Prime Minister have anything to do with that decision? That is all I am asking. I hope that I shall get an answer.

Mr. Don Dixon: The sequestration of the NUM's funds by Price Waterhouse, the blank cheque that the Government have given to underwrite that company and the involvement of the Attorney-General's office in this dispute is a combination that has been brought about by fetching the law into industrial relations. The danger in this dispute is that the Government seriously think that, by Price Waterhouse sequestrating NUM funds, they can .break the union. Even Tuesday's Financial Times wrote:
Nalgo not to give sequestrators details of funds for miners … The Nalgo decision could itself place the union in contempt of court".
Where will it stop, this bringing of the law into industrial relations? The union's money does not belong to the general secretary. NUM money does not belong to Scargill; General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union money does not belong to Basnett, Transport and General Workers Union money does not belong to Moss Evans; and Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen money does not belong to Ray Buckton. The money belongs to the members who have contributed for many years.
I joined a union when I was 14 and have paid union contributions every year since, even when I served in the Armed Forces. There are many like me who have belonged to a union for many years. When the Government think that they are getting at a general secretary, they are in fact hitting all the members of a union.
If the law could solve industrial relations, the simplest thing would be for the Government to pass a law that required everyone to go to work from 7.30 am until 5 pm without a break. Indeed, why should they not pass a law saying that the miners must go back to work tomorrow morning—if the law can solve industrial relations? The law has the opposite effect. It has lengthened rather than shortened this dispute. Many people in Britain feel that there are two laws—one for some people and another for the rest. When the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came back with milk quotas from Europe, dairy farmers were not particularly happy. When there was a milk race at Aberystwyth, dairy farmers got their tractors and Land Rovers out and barricaded the road to stop the milk race. One farmer was arrested. Yet hundreds of miners are arrested for obstruction when they merely step from the pavement to the road. Tha is why people think that there are two laws.
When the Prime Minister went to speak at a Tory meeting in Wales, someone among a group of farmers' wives who were demonstrating threw an egg and hit the

Prime Minister. Nobody wants that to happen, but the point is that nobody was arrested. Yet hundreds of miners who stand outside mines shouting "Scabs!" are immediately arrested and put in gaol. That is why many people think that there are two laws and that the law is being brought into disrepute.
We have seen all this before. I remember the sequestrator coming to Hebburn urban district council, as a result of industrial relations legislation which was introduced by the 1970–74 Government formed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), to take £50,000 of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers' money which was invested in that council. It did not work then and it will not work this time, because a union's assets are under the caps of members of that union. They cannot be taken away.
Many people also feel strongly about the Social Security Act, which denies benefit to the dependants of strikers. A few months ago I asked the Prime Minister why the law should treat the dependants of the Yorkshire Ripper—who is in jail to protect society—better than the dependants of a Yorkshire miner who is on strike to defend his community. That is nonsense.
If a trade unionist went to work tomorrow and voted for a strike, £16 would be deducted from the benefit paid to his dependants, but if he went to work and shot the foreman, he would be put in jail and his dependants would be looked after. That is the nonsense of our trade union legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) hit the nail right on the head when he said that the issue is not about uneconomic pits. It is an attempt to break one of our strongest trade unions. Given the legislation which has been introduced by the Government since 1979—the Social Security Act, the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982 and the trade union legislation which has recently received Royal Assent — it is easy to see what is happening.
Many years ago I read an article by Martin Niemoller on what happened in Germany between 1933 and 1945. He said:
When they came for the Communists we were not Communists—so we did nothing.
When they came for the Jews we were not Jews—so we did nothing.
When they came for the Social Democrats we were not Social Democrats—so we did nothing.
When they came for the Trade Unionists we were not Trade Unionists—so we did nothing.
When they came for the liberals and intellectuals we were scared—so we did nothing.
When they came for the Churchmen we were frightened—so we did nothing.
When they came for us we looked for help—but we were alone!
The same is happening to the trade union movement, and those words are as true now as they were when Martin Niemoller first wrote them. In the context of this dispute they would read:
When they came for the steelworkers we were not steelworkers—so we did nothing.
When they came for the railwaymen we were not in ASLEF —so we did nothing.
When they came for the NGA we were not in the printing industry—so we did nothing.
When they took the union cards off the civil servants at GCHQ we were scared—so we did nothing.
When they came for the miners we were frightened—so we did nothing.


When they came for us we looked for help—but we were alone.
That is my message to the trade union movement, and I hope that it takes notice of it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Lest we forget why we are gathered here this evening, it might be worth recalling the incident that took place the other day in the Chamber, when the Attorney-General ventured upon what can only be described as a vicious attack on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). That was an occasion that we all recall, because nothing that my right hon. and learned Friend said in any way deserved the response that he received. It might be that the Attorney-General is not au fait with the practices of parliamentarians in this House, and that may be why he made that mistake.
I cannot match the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who put his case emotionally and accurately on behalf of the people he represents in the valleys of south Wales.
I was born in Ty-coch, Swansea. As a child, I remember going up those valleys with my father. I remember sitting at the knee of my grandmother who explained to me what happened in south Wales in the 1920s. I have never suffered such experiences. I can savour them only through the experience of others, but they bear examination. They illustrate what may happen if the Government get their way. The Government wish to use the law of this land to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers. Let nobody outside the Chamber be in any doubt about their intention. If they do not understand the implications of the Government's intentions, they should read the history of the Labour movement and try to understand the implications of smashing a trade union. We can remove a union's assets and take away its worldly wealth, but we cannot remove its sole raison d'etre.
Last weekend a very beautiful photograph appeared in the Observer Review. It showed five women standing on a picket line in south Wales. Underneath was the heading:
No surrender in the valleys.
The expressions on the faces of those women showed their sheer guts and determination never to be defeated. That is what the Government face. They cannot resolve the problem in the courts, through sequestration, or by destroying the NUM. The Government will have to face the wrath of the tens of thousands of people who will never forget what is happening today. We are talking not just about a few people, but about the families of those miners who are in the front line of this very tragic experience—perhaps as many as 250,000 people in the heart of Britain's industrial areas. They form the backbone of the industrial working class of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, they will never forget.
There is an alternative to sequestration. During the last two or three weeks we have repeatedly drawn the attention of the Government to two recently published documents. One was published by five academic accountants, all of whom have experience of the accounts of the NCB. The second document was published by the London Business School.
The first document effectively challenges most of the commercial and financial assumptions of the National Coal Board about its closure programme. That case was answered at the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister in

response to a number of questions that were put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Upon each occasion we went back to those who carried out the research and asked them to clarify the position. Subsequently they withdrew the original document which was to be published in the magazine Accountancy. Yesterday morning the revised version of their original document went into print in Accountancy Age. Most of my hon. Friends have a copy of that document. It answers all the criticisms made by the Prime Minister in the House and by the National Coal Board in discussions with the Government, the Prime Minister's private office and the magazine "Accountancy". Their reservations have been answered, and that document is relevant.
The London Business School document must he viewed in terms of its ability to provide a solution to the industrial action. The document says that if allowances are made for fluctuating potential profitability in pits — what the authors define as avoidable costs — about 160,000 people are currently employed in pits which are potentially profitable. That figure has been derived by applying the most stringent criterion of profitability; that is, that every pit must break even, not just the industry as a whole. The document states:
Suppose the miners' fierce resistance to further closures, following a period of three years in which some 35,000 mining redundancies were peacably agreed, does reflect their fears that a further 100,000 jobs could disappear. Is a compromise possible whereby the National Union of Mineworkers is persuaded to accept the principle of closure on economic grounds in return for a guarantee that the principle will not be pursued to the point where the industry is completely decimated? If such a compromise is sought, then further discussions of the economics of the industry will be needed.
That document and the others are an alternative to sequestration. They are the olive branch which independent observers, watching from outside, who wish to see the dispute resolved are submitting as the basis on which further negotiations can take place. On the basis of conversations with persons who are close to the National Union of Mineworkers national executive, I believe that if the Government were to show, in even the minutest way, that those two documents could form the basis for a resumption of negotiations, the National Union of Mineworkers would tell the Government — privately, initially—that things could start to happen.
The dispute will have to end one day. The Government have alternatives. They can use the courts and sequestration to crush the union. They may remove its assets, but they will not crush the spirit of the miners. Whatever happens, the union will remain in spirit.
Alternatively, the Government can send even a tiny signal of an intention to examine documents that might form the basis of further negotiations. If they did that, people would wish to go to the negotiating table and we would see the end of the dispute.
If we proceed on the basis of what has happened so far —we have already spent, on a conservative estimate, £1·5 billion— a further £1 billion may run down the plug-hole in a matter of months. Is that what the British people want? Those two documents could form the basis of negotiation and bring the parties together. To talk in terms of there being no movement in the NUM's position would be highly irresponsible if the Government said that those documents could form the basis for negotiation. If


the Government made that offer, I am sure that the NUM would equally wish to respond, and that people throughout the United Kingdom would say that it should do so.
There is a way out of the dispute. The Government need not go back to the courts. The courts are not needed. Flexibility is needed. Those two documents provide the basis for flexibility. The Minister should go to his colleagues and say, "Let us have a look at those documents that Labour Members have been on about for the past three weeks. Let us send signals out to the NUM and see whether what those Labour Members said in the debate the other night was empty rhetoric or really meant something." I know that what I have said is based on real conversations that have taken place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Front Bench wishes to catch my eye at 2.45 am. Five hon. Members are still waiting to speak. If they limit themselves to nine minutes each, they should all be able to do so.

Mr. Peter Pike: I shall take note of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the sequestration, Price Waterhouse, and the unprecedented guarantees that the Government have given. They are unprecedented, but not unexpected. The Government are dogmatically determined to defeat and destroy the NUM. Hon. Members should make no mistake: the sole reason for sequestration and for giving that indemnity was to destroy the NUM and to end the dispute in that way. The Government will not win like that, because, as long as the miners are willing to withhold their labour, they cannot do so.
I represent a constituency that was founded on two industries: cotton, which has almost gone, and coal mining, which has completely disappeared. In Burnley coal was mined for 500 or 600 years, but our last coal mine at Hapton valley closed about two years ago. Many people still work at Agecroft and other pits, and travel to work every day. But there are retired miners and miners who took redundancy because they felt that they were too old to take the transfer when Hapton valley closed. They say that their only regret about this dispute is that it did not happen a few years ago, and that we did not fight to save the mines in Burnley and in many other areas. That is the tragedy. That is what should have been done.
The amazing thing is that, although the NCB has closed its operations in Burnley, within the past few months a private coal mine has opened to extract the coal that the board left behind. At tomorrow night's meeting of the planning committee in Burnley there will be yet another application to mine more coal from the pits left there.
Every industry fiddles the accounts and shows profits where it wants. Multinationals can even show profits in the countries that they want. Until last year I worked in an industry that manufactured television tubes. We were told that we were making them at a loss, but another part of the company that made the sets, was making a substantial profit out of those tubes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that the NCB's objective is that every pit must make a profit. That is nonsense. We must

judge the industry as a whole. Whether the industry is successful depends on how it meets the nation's energy needs. That cannot be judged solely in accounting terms. We should look at the national energy policy. If the Government were doing their job, they would use coal to extend the life of the natural gas that we have and start feeding substitute natural gas into the pipeline. They would also consider coal liquefication and extending the life of our oil reserves with substitutes. Those are the directions in which we should be working.
The Prime Minister often refers to Victorian values and seems to be proud of them. Let us remember the old industrial and pit towns of Britain in Victorian times. Is that what Britain wants to return to? The Prime Minister is trying to return the trade union movement to Victorian times. Britain may have been wealthy. We may have been powerful in Victorian times, but that power was achieved on the backs of ordinary working people. That surely cannot be acceptable in 1984 and 1985.
There is no doubt that the NCB provoked the dispute by not abiding by the agreed procedures at Cortonwood. Having invested a large amount of money and told the miners that they had a future, the NCB suddenly said that production would cease in five weeks' time. That would obviously be provocative and cause a dispute.
The police have turned people back on motorways because they believed that they might be going to picket and that there might be a dispute or some other unfortunate incident. If that were done on any Saturday, when coaches are travelling to different parts of the country with football supporters, in the belief that there may be a disturbance at a football match, it would not be acceptable. That is the path down which the Government are going. It is an infringement of civil rights and the development of a police state. We want to see that practice ended. Since the dispute began in the first week of March, the Government have not taken one positive action to try to resolve the dispute and get the miners back to work. I have never known another national dispute where the Government have not tried to intervene at some stage to try to bring both sides together in negotiations to resolve the dispute.
The Government have not intervened because they have one objective: they want to defeat the mineworkers and Arthur Scargill. That will not be allowed to happen because it is not Arthur Scargill's battle; it is the NUM's battle, and it has the support of many millions of people in Britain. It has the support of the Labour party and it will win. Ultimately the Government will have to recognise that there must be negotiations and that we must try to achieve a peaceful settlement and develop sensible energy use in Britain.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Roughly one third of the pits in the Lancashire coalfield are in my constituency and just under one third of its miners. My miners have been on strike since the beginning of the dispute and they remain resolute in their determination to see the matter through to the end. I mention those matters in opening because when we begin to consider the matter, many questions, particularly with regard to the sequestration, require to be answered.
I made an application to ask a private notice question on Monday this week which was refused. It was very much


in the terms of a question that I asked the Attorney-General, to which I received an answer. I seek not to be critical because it is not good manners to be critical of a person in his absence. I do not seek to be critical. However, on that occasion I received an answer that as a solicitor—I am no longer one—I would not have given.
My question was whether or not the precedent set in this matter would be extended. I received a professional attack in reply, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I am used to the professional banter of the House, but that does not negate the question. On what precedent were all these matters based? We now hear that it is the common law of England. That is like saying to a farmer that there is a grain store over there. It means nothing. It does not answer the question.
The private notice question that I sought to put down on Monday was this. At the time of the Attorney-General's statement we were told that the sequestrators had about £8,000 in cash, which they could glean towards the payment of their fees. The sum was paltry and Price Waterhouse needed to be indemnified. However, it did not want it. That is on public record, so, that matter need not be pursued further.
The House was not told, what any competent lawyer already knew, that the National Union of Mineworkers owned many properties in which its existing officials and retired former officials were tenants. Those union assets are within the United Kingdom and are available to the sequestrators. During the weekend there were press reports about former members of the NUM being written to about the payment of their rent, including Lord Gormley. He was asked to pay his rent and he said that in future he would pay it to the sequestrators.
When the statement was made to the House, that fact was clearly known to the sequestrators. Was it known to the Attorney-General? The assets had a tangible and genuine value and were within the possession of the sequestrators in so far as an application for payment of rent had already been made. What then was the need for the indemnity? The assets were there.
I would not countenance or support the realisation of those assets, but the principle is established. The assets were available. The question of my right hon. and learned Friend to the Attorney-General and that which I put were exactly the same. Bearing in mind what normally happens in a sequestration, what was the purpose of the indemnity? The truth is that it was a purely political act, motivated not by the Attorney-General, but from another quarter, as was clearly demonstrated by the press statement. One more knife was being driven into the wound which has been unnecessarily created during the dispute.
It has been blatantly obvious from the word go that, had the normal rules and practices of industrial action been applied to the dispute, the matter would have been resolved a long time ago. Every time a solution has been sought—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has referred openly to this in the House—the Coal Board negotiators telephone, not the Coal Board, but Downing street. The dispute has been driven deeper and deeper by the Government's complete inability to negotiate or to behave in a way that sought negotiation.
We can all play politics. We can all say that we want resolution on our terms, but I say this to the Government: every day that passes, people in my constituency are paying the price for the intransigence of the Government

and their unwillingness to make a move to resolve the dispute. Many thousands of my constituents, whether they be miners or miners' relatives or children, have suffered inordinately because of the Government's intransigence. It is unnecessary, and it has always been unnecessary, because this matter could have been resolved with good will round the table, provided that the government recognised one thing: that the miners have a deep and abiding loyalty not only to their colleagues but to the industry. The mining communities believe that their industry is worth while. They have a belief in its future that the Government have failed to recognise. The Government seem to have a simple motto: if it stays still long enough, sell it. The coal mining industry is not for sale. It must be developed in the interests of society.
Long after the Government have left office, there will be a coal mining industry, because people such as the constituents whom I am proud to serve will have fought again and again to maintain it. They believe in its future, they recognise its potential, and they will give their all to develop it. It might be a nice new year gesture if the Government showed some confidence and faith in the industry, and tried to do something to support its future rather than seeking to destroy it at every turn.

Mr. Ray Powell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) on initiating a debate—I shall try not to stray from the subject—on Price Waterhouse and the sequestration of NUM assets. My hon. Friend, with his great knowledge of mining, expressed his view with sincerity of purpose. I know that his union and his mining friends appreciate his representation of them in the House. I was interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) sum up succinctly the legal technicalities, and I hope that the Solicitor-General's reply will show why the Prime Minister was able to give direct instructions that the costs of the firm trying to sequestrate the assets of the NUM would be met by the Treasury.
Will the Government be able to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)? If they are, as he suggests, infringing the laws of the country, is it not time that the House had an explanation of why, and who gives them the authority if they have it?
It is strange that in a similar case, affecting a different union, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Government have brought in William the Conqueror to rescue the Tory party and to assist the sequestration of funds from the TGWU. The Morning Star of Wednesday 12 December says that the High Court
pulled an official White Rabbit out of the hat to extract £200,000 from the Transport and General Workers Union funds, without imposing sequestration.
The title of the court official discovered for this purpose is the Queen's Remembrancer, a title introduced by William the Conqueror. The Government are going back into the depths of history to find out different officers. Whenever I walk through the corridors of the Palace of Westminster, I am intrigued to find different people lurking around, but I have never found a Queen's Remembrancer. Can we have an explanation about this person. Who pays his salary? What does he get? According to the article in the Morning Star, the holder of


this ancient office, is Mr. J. R. Bickford-Smith, a barrister and a master of the High Court, whose job is to remember and collect debts owed to the Crown.
The court's decision to avoid going through the procedure of sequestrating funds from Britain's biggest union, follows the undignified treatment of the receiver appointed to grab the miners' funds in Luxembourg. I ask for a reply from the Solicitor-General as to who the Queen's Remembrancer is, why he has been appointed, and why it was possible to appoint him before the Government brought in Price Waterhouse to sequestrate the funds of the NUM.
In the Welsh valleys, most of the striking miners have photocopies of the Economist's leaked version of the Ridley report. That shows clearly what the Tory party intends to do with the NUM and with the trade union movement, and what the Tory party in six years of office has accomplished. Things that were not in its manifesto are included in the Ridley report. This proves conclusively what we have said in the House over a number of years.
In March 1983, the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), gave the House a statement to say that he was appointing Ian MacGregor as the chairman of the NCB. He said:
Accordingly, a fee of £1·5 million will be paid to Lazard Freres in compensation for the loss of Mr. MacGregor's service. Two thirds of that fee will be refundable on a pro rata basis if Mr. MacGregor does not complete his full three-year term." — [Official Report, 28 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 19.]
Who on earth on the Government Benches, with all their directorships, managing directorships and ownership of many companies would have appointed any person to that type of job at that salary? How long would Government Ministers have allowed that person to remain in office? Mr. MacGregor was appointed on 1 December 1983, and, for 10 of the 14 months he has been in office, he has had the industry on stop. What private company would have allowed that to happen? What private company would have appointed Mr. MacGregor?
Many of my hon. Friends who have participated in this debate tonight asked questions about Mr. MacGregor's appointment when his appointment was announced to the House, and they are still asking questions. Was Mr. MacGregor appointed for the primary purpose of ensuring that the NUM was crushed? I know that the Prime Minister, Ministers and many Tories are still smarting at the result of the NUM's action during the term of the previous Tory Government. I regret the fact that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not in the Chair when my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) described what is happening to the miners, their wives and children.
I shall be proud until my dying day that I was born the son of a miner in the Rhondda. Miners are the most compassionate race of people one could ever meet. I assure the House that in no way will the mining communities capitulate to threats from the Tory Government. For over half a century, the miners have endured suppression from the Tory Administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda stated, the miners will not capitulate to this Government, and the sooner the Government appreciate that fact and negotiate, the better.
Perhaps the Solicitor-General will read my speech on the motion to adjourn the House for the Christmas recess. I asked hon. Members to give two days of their holiday to discuss the miners' dispute. That might be the answer

to the problem. If we are the legislators of this country, let us resolve this dispute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is the only Member who has tried to resolve this dispute. If the Government had taken the lead from my right hon. Friend, I am sure that the dispute would have been resolved long before now.

Mr. Dave Nellist: We are debating the intervention of Price Waterhouse which, before this case, was a firm of accountants unknown to the country at large, despite the fact that it controlled an empire worth £60 million a year. It is interesting to step back and to realise why the company became involved in the courts in the first place.
Price Waterhouse became involved because of the action of two scabs who took a case through the courts. They received funding from companies such as United Biscuits. On the secret advice—it later became public—of Mr. MacGregor and his runner, Mr. Hart, shuffling between Hobart house and 10 Downing street, those two individuals were advised to attack NUM funds. Along came Price Waterhouse. The debate correctly concentrates on the way in which Price Waterhouse attacks the NUM's assets.
Not just the NUM's assets are threatened by the work of Price Waterhouse. This week's Militant newspaper prints the letter from Price Waterhouse which has gone out to the general secretaries of every trade union. It demands of every trade union that they issue a report to Price Waterhouse stating the amount of each and every payment that they have made to the National Union of Mineworkers, and whether it was in cash and by way of a loan or gift. If payments were made by cheque, Price Waterhouse require sight or a copy of both sides of the cheques. It wants to know the person or persons to whom the payment was made, the purpose for which the money was used by the miners, whether it is intended to make any further payments with full particulars if they are. Price Waterhouse notes that it is authorised and commanded by the court to take into possession all the assets of the union and says that it intends to track down any money presently controlled by other trade unions which is destined for the NUM.
That is not just an attack on the NUM and its assets but a threat to the control of the funds of 10·5 million members of the Trade Union Congress and its affiliates.
All that Price Waterhouse obtained in the first instance was Lord Gormley's house and swimming pool, and about £8,000 in cash. The date upon which the decision was made to chase the rest of the union's money in Luxembourg is significant. It came at the end of the failure of another of the Coal Board's tactics, which was carried out on the Government's instructions. That was the so-called drift back to work.
The Secretary of State for Energy claimed as far back as July that 60,000 miners were at work. The NCB did not reach that figure until about the middle of November. We must recognise that today 90 per cent. of the miners in Scotland, 97 per cent. of the miners in Yorkshire and 99 per cent. of the miners in south Wales are on strike and have remained solid for nearly 10 months.
The carrot had failed. The bribes had failed. The sums of money that had been approved in the House at half-past one, two and three o'clock in the morning which gave


lump sum social security payments to miners to give up the jobs which belong rightly to the next generation in the mining areas leaving school had failed. The Government then thought that they should try the stick, and attack the union through its funds.
The Government used the same speed, prompted by the same obsession of the Prime Minister's, as they had used to attack miners' benefits when they tried to starve them back to work. Only a week ago I asked the Leader of the House in business questions, and the Treasury Bench in questions to the Chancellor immediately before, about the Government's intention to attack single striking miners over the housing benefit that it had been found they were entitled to claim for 10 months if they were paying rent to relatives when living at home. When I asked whether the Government intended to introduce regulations they hummed and hawed. They would not commit themselves. They made the regulations on 17 December; they laid them before Parliament on 18 December; and they came into operation on 19 December. During my brief membership of the House I had understood that there was normally a 21-day waiting period between regulations being laid and coming into operation.
When it comes to attacking the miners, by Price Waterhouse or by laying regulations on the Table, the Government are obsessed almost to the point of insanity with tracking down money which rightly belongs to the NUM or its members. Matters are entirely different when it comes to tax evasion or tax avoidance. There we see plans to close Inland Revenue offices and reduce the number of staff who tackle those who salt money away in Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man. Which nationally know firm of accountants was employed to track down Lord Vestey and his butchers when they paid only 10 quid in tax on £2·5 million profit, or whatever the precise figure was? Was Price Waterhouse brought in then? No. That is because he was a mate of the Tory party. It is a matter of class.
When workers and their money are involved, employ a £60 million firm of accountants to chase them, and give it all the resources it needs. When it is tax evasion and avoidance try to sweep it under the carpet and see whether the matter can be forgotten. That illustrates the political nature of tonight's discussion, and the class nature of the law in the way that it is being employed by the Tory Government at present.
The law is not neutral, not even in this hallowed Chamber where law is supposed to be made. We on the Labour Benches know that it is invented by those like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Gentleman invented it when he was Secretary of State for Employment and so did his predecessor. The law is administered by Tories like Lord Chief Justice Donaldson, who intervened in the battle of the National Graphical Association with Eddie Shah at Warrington. He tried to take the money of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers in 1972. He was the head of the industrial relations court in 1971. We are told that when someone puts on a piece of white fur he becomes a neutral Lord Chief Justice. The present Lord Chief Justice is a former Croydon Tory councillor and a past president of the Conservative and Unionist Association at Cambridge university. I do not believe that his decisions are entirely impartial and fair once he dons a wig. Let us remember

that he was consorting with Ministers as recently as 36 months ago and planning recently enacted anti-trade union legislation.
The law is funded by political interests. United Biscuits funded Taylor and Foulstone, which initiated the action against the NUM, and that company funds the Tory party. It is one of the largest contributors to the Tory party. When it comes to selecting a sequestrator, the Government do not have the nouse to pick someone who does not have a political background. They picked a bloke called Brewer the first time round, the vice-chairman of the Hallam Conservative Association. How political can one get? However, the Government saw fit to pick a sequestrator with that sort of political background.
Of course, the Government have had the support of the newspapers. Virtually all the editors have been knighted by the Government. The legislation that we are discussing, which is being followed through by Price Waterhouse, has a political history. It was political when it was invented, administered and enforced.
The Tory Government have failed to crack the solidarity of the majority of miners. They have wasted £4,500 million and more in trying to defeat the NUM. That sum would enable the Government to reduce the burden of every taxpayer by £4 a week or to pay about £25 a week to every person on the dole. That is an example of the uneconomic terms of the strike. Apparently it is more economic to invest that sort of money to try to break the NUM than to give a decent sum to those who are on the dole. The money that the Government have spent in furtherance of the dispute would have been sufficient to provide a new general hospital as well as six new comprehensive schools and 1,000 council houses in each of 45 cities of the size of Coventry. Instead, the Government have spent the money in trying to break the NUM. In addition to the money that they hake already spent, they are funding Price Waterhouse in pursuance of a vindictive court action.
The Government have tried to convince the miners that they were working in an uneconomic industry with uneconomic pits. That argument has failed. It is ironic that one of the five professors of accountancy who have destroyed that argument is a Price Waterhouse man at Manchester university. The Government selected a firm of accountants and one of its members scabbed on them by saying that their economic argument was up the chute. There has been a report from Dr. Andrew Glyn to the effect that their economic argument is up the chute. The Government have included the interest payments that they have received from the National Coal Board. They have included also the compensation payments that have been made to those whose homes have been destroyed by subsidence, especially in the Mansfield area. They have included the pensions paid to retired miners.
Even if the Government close every pit in Britain, they would still have to pay compensation for subsidence, pensions to former miners and interest charges on loans that have been guaranteed. How can those obligations be a charge on the present generation of miners? How can they be a charge on Cortonwood, Betteshanger or any of the other pits that are under threat? They should be a charge upon the Government and they should be borne by them. They should not be used in an attempt to prove that the industry is uneconomic.
The Government have tried to starve the miners back to work by cutting benefits. Benefits have been reduced


to a level that is lower than those that would be paid to the families of murderers. They have tried to bludgeon the miners back by the use of the police.
As there are one or two faces in the Chamber that are new to the two debates on the miners that we have had in the past 10 months, I shall say again — it is worth repeating—that four months ago my sister had a baby. My brother-in-law is a member of the NUM. He is an electrician at the Selby coalfield. I visited my family at Selby a couple of days before the baby was born and we watched the television news together. At 20 minutes to six o'clock on the BBC news there was a report of seven policemen in the south being sent to arrest post office robbers who were known to be armed with sawn-off shotguns.
At 5.45 pm on ITV there was an entirely different story in the headlines. There were 1,000 policemen in riot gear on horseback with dogs, truncheons and shields escorting one man—Brian Green—into the Gascoigne Wood area of the Selby coalfield. When it comes to law and order, in the eyes of the Tory Government, it is a bigger crime to stand on the picket line and defend one's job and one's community than to use a sawn-off shotgun. In that case, one out of the seven policemen was shot in the groin and the head. He was put on a life-support machine, and subsequently died, yet more policemen were used to get one scab into a coalfield than were sent to arrest people known to have sawn-off shotguns.
If the fight goes on and the Government succeed in taking away the miners' money for the use of Price Waterhouse, that will not destroy the mood and morale of the NUM and its members, who are defending their communities and their jobs. The argument has nothing to do with economic or uneconomic pits. In the language of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, this is a battle to neuter and castrate the trade union movement, with the NUM being the first in line. The Tory Government think that if they can crack the NUM, the others will despair and be demoralised, and can be beaten. It will not work. The miners will not be defeated. In my area of Warwickshire, and in Wales, Scotland, Yorkshire and other areas, the miners will not be defeated.
The system lorded over by the Government is not working. Some 5 million are on the dole, 6 million live in damp houses, 9·7 million cannot afford a holiday away from home without staying with relatives, and 15 million are on or below the officially defined poverty line. Those are the economic reasons why the Government want to attack the trade union movement. Only the trade unions stand in the way of the working class being further pauperised and the Government enriching their own supporters.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nellist: No, because I am just about to finish.
That is the basis of the Government's decision to fund Price Waterhouse. If they can defeat the NUM, they think that they can carry that programme further. They are in for a shock. The miners will not be defeated.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: At the beginning of the debate we were talking about Price Waterhouse having

to go round the world trying to find the money. I said a few days ago, when the Attorney-General was not sick—I rather suspect that he is not today; he is dodging the column—that it was possible for Price Waterhouse to get the £200,000 without any problem, without travelling outside this country, because ever since the strike began those who have been working in Nottingham, south Derbyshire and Leicestershire have been paying their union contributions through the normal system to the NCB. The element of their contribution that would normally go as part of the imprest account to the NUM has not been sent, so the NCB has more than £200,000 of NUM money, national money, that it could have collected by a simple telephone call to two or three of the working areas, and that would have been the end of it.
If anybody has any doubts about what this business is all about, as many of my hon. Friends have said, it is about trying to cripple the NUM. The Government hope that if they can get away with that—which they will not—they can set upon the rest of the trade union movement, and trade unions will fall like a pack of dominoes. I shall tell the House what the sequestrators and the Government should be doing. It is time that they looked for the disappearing pound. It is 1·174 on today's exchanges against the dollar. It has dropped to the lowest point against all the currencies that are usually used for measuring the level of the pound.
Here we are, with a Government spending up to £5,000 million to try to crush the NUM, and the pound has reached its lowest ever level. In 1974, we defeated the Tory Government, who deliberately went to the country. The NUM did not force the election; the Tory Government decided on it. We defeated them then because the oil prices quadrupled. Would it not be ironic if, when we win this one, it is because the pound has fallen through the floor as oil prices have tumbled? As we watch the pound disappear, it will become clearer to the Government day by day that they will have to try to negotiate their way out of this mess. We have all heard about the Ridley plan. Everyone—even The Economist—knows what that was all about.
I will tell the House what I have learnt from this sequestration business, and I hope that the Labour Government will remember it in the future. If it is right to send Tory officials around the world as sequestrators looking for money that belongs to the working class, because it comes from working people's contributions, the Labour Government must be prepared to go after the Tory money that finishes up in foreign banks to avoid tax in Britain. It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. There is always something that can be used. I warn the Solicitor-General that the time will come when we shall be following the money that the serried ranks of Tories put outside this country rather than pay their taxes in Britain to finance the Health Service and look after the old age pensioners.
Right from the start the Government, with their Fascist tendencies, set out to try to smash the unions, using the police force as the Prime Minister's private army and using the DHSS to starve little children. They have told the BBC that it will not get its licence fees unless it toes the Conservative line. "Speak for MacGregor or you won't get your increase", was the message to that element of the media which some people-I am not so stupid—believe to be impartial. Things are not very different with ITV. A film was commissioned from Ken Loach on the cultural


side of the strike. There were people reciting poems, two or three folk singers and a small contribution from me in a speech about Wordsborough. But as soon as they saw the film the Government, with their army of people at ITV, banned it from Britain's screens because it told a story about the pits that they did not want people to hear.
The Government have been using all the echelons of the establishment to try to crush the miners. They have sent stipendiary magistrates to Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire because they were not satisfied with magistrates born and bred in the mining communities. They have used judges to get innumerable writs and injunctions through the courts, brought by working miners on the advice of people straight from the Prime Minister's press office. Few Opposition Members and very few miners will ever again doubt that the arm of the executive and the judiciary are closely combined to try to smash the unions.
A Lloyds bank circular dated 22 November, immediately after sequestration, reads as follows:
Any Branch holding an account … or assets in the names of the following, should report the full details immediately by telephone to the Chief Inspector's Department".
The list that follows begins with John Burrows. He is not on the national executive. He is a Derbyshire miners' official; Kenneth Homer is a Yorkshire miners' official; Nell Elizabeth Hyett is a press officer and has never been elected to any position in the NUM; Henry Richardson is a Nottinghamshire miners' official; Samuel Thompson is a Yorkshire miners' official; and so it goes on.
Those are the lengths to which the Government will go to try to crush the NUM, but we have drawn up a list of ideas that unions can use to get round the restrictions imposed by the courts. We are telling all the trade union executives to ignore the threats from all those involved in the sequestration of NUM funds by continuing to make large donations to the miners' solidarity fund and by offering the NUM large long-term interest-free loans. I want that written in Hansard. They should levy all trade union members at a rate of between 10p and 50p a week. They should collectively hire and pay the wages of all the staff employed by the NUM in all the coalfield offices, for the duration of the strike.
If the other trade unions do that, they can get round the sequestration order and help to finance a continuation of the NUM's tremendous and honourable battle. The battle is not about wages; it is not about greed; it is not about materialism; it is about the right to work and to stop the march forward to the dole queue.
We are calling upon trade unions to dodge the sequestration order by hiring staff on a consultancy basis so that NUM members can give advice—"advice" in inverted commas—to union officials. We ask them to purchase The Miner so that we can continue to get the message across, and to use transport to take people to demonstrations
Those are some of the things that the trade unions can do. They can also step up industrial action. It may well be that, in the new pay round that is beginning, the Government will not be as lucky as they have been during the past 40 weeks. There will be unions that decide that it would not be a bad idea to take on the Government, because the Government could not handle two major disputes at the same time. The Government will not continue to be as lucky as they have been throughout the dispute in that respect.
We are determined to fight on. The Government may think that they have everybody taped. They may think that they have their Back Benchers taped, as indeed they had them taped earlier today. They may think that they can bully their way through to success after success. They may think that luck will be on their side all the time. They may think that they can use the judiciary and the police. But the Government's luck will not last for ever. There will be a reckoning day. As a result of the Government's bullying, and their attacks on the trade union movement, the Government will fall.
The point of this debate is to mobilise support throughout the country, and that is the point of the collections that we make in every Tory constituency in the land. We went to Finchley the other day, to Madam Dross's constituency, and collected money there. We are sending money to the miners from every part of the land. We shall continue to collect that money in order to finance the strike and to provide the umbilical cord between the NUM and the rest of the working class. We will not allow the Government to cripple the NUM and to smash the trade union movement.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene briefly in this dispute to underline what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said in an important debate about a major industrial dispute. The debate arose on the Price Waterhouse situation. I have some evidence for saying that, after being appointed to do the job, Price Waterhouse realised what problems it was up against and what difficulties there would be in chasing the money. I do not believe that Price Waterhouse was influenced by the cost. I believe that the firm made it clear to the Government that the game was not worth the candle and that it was tiring of the situation. The Government realised that if Price Waterhouse withdrew as sequestrator, the matter would go back to the courts and another problem would be created. The Government therefore told Price Waterhouse that it must carry out the court's injunction and that they would indemnify the company for any costs that were incurred.
When he made his statement a few days ago, the Attorney-General talked about a cost of £50,000. The company's fees last year were in excess of £62 million. The Solicitor-General must explain why the Government should, quite unprecedentedly, intervene in a legal decision.
A Minister from the Department of Energy should have been present to hear the debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends have rightly linked the debate with the dispute. That is what it is all about and why Price Waterhouse has been involved. The dispute has now been going on for 10 months. It is a major dispute and, in my opinion, quite unnecessary. It has been created by the NCB's decision of 6 March to make proposals which, in the current financial year, would have meant the loss of 20,000 jobs and the closure of 20 pits. That is what is on the table. The NUM has no demands on the table. This is an argument about not wages or hours, but jobs. It is an argument about the preservation of jobs and of communities, but it does not stop with those 20,000 jobs and 20 pits.
Several reports have questioned the accountancy. We have had the reports of accountants, of the London Business School and of "Diverse Reports" on television recently, which made it clear that not 20,000 but 70,000 jobs and 70 pits are involved. That would represent a


reduction of the industry from about 180,000 jobs to 100,000. If that reduction took place and the industry were concentrated solely where there are new pits and where there is new investment, the result would be death for the coalfields of south Wales, Lancashire, Kent, parts of Yorkshire, Scotland and the north-east. The new areas receive 81 per cent. of the investment. The remaining 19 per cent. goes to other areas.
In that regard, the question "What is an uneconomic pit?" is brought into the open. If we exclude pits that the NUM agrees should be excluded because they have been exhausted and pits out of which it is geologically impossible to get coal, what is an uneconomic pit? If the investment and the priority are given, the coal can be got and there is no such thing as an uneconomic pit.

Mr. Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: I should like to develop my argument. I should have liked to exchange views with the hon. Gentleman, but I must finish in a couple of minutes.
I believe that there is a basis for a negotiated settlement of the dispute. Last Friday, the TUC put forward sensible and positive suggestions. It asked the Government to reconvene talks, which the NUM was prepared to attend, but the Government said no.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: No, I will not.
In my opinion, the Government do not want a settlement of this dispute. They are deliberately allowing it to continue into next year. They want to see a victory over the NUM, but neither I nor my hon. Friends believe that they will achieve that victory. The sooner they realise that, the better for them and the country.
We are now going down a very dangerous road. That is why some of us have worked night and day to try to resolve this dispute on a basis which is honourable and acceptable to the NUM and to the other bodies involved. If the Government do not take heed of what I am saying, some of these problems will come home to roost in 1985.
The Government may think that they are winning, but they are not. Having gone into the coalfields, I know that the miners who are out will stay out. They will fight, and that fight will be increasingly understood by the people of the country. The Government should act now. If they do not, be it on their head if there is a continuation of the dispute well into 1985.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): It is a matter of great regret to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that on the clearest medical advice he is unable to be here tonight. On 11 December he returned for a day or two only from a period of absence due to sickness, and I regretted the slur cast upon him in the recent speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who suggested that by his absence the Attorney-General was dodging the column.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not believe the miners, and the Attorney-General is not on supplementary benefit.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: However, in a spirit of realism, I did not find that suggestion any less fantastic or unrealistic than many others which graced the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I shall begin with a few comments about the writ and procedure of sequestration in the context of contempt of court—[Interruption.] I shall then describe briefly the special status—[Interruption.] I wonder whether Labour Members are really concerned about the matter we have been discussing. If so, I hope that they will listen, but I have some time left and I shall continue whatever the noise. I shall say a little about the special status and the function of the Attorney-General in matters that concern contempt of court. I shall briefly review the history of the action in which these proceedings against the NUM for contempt of court have culminated in the appointment of sequestrators by the High Court. I shall then recount in outline the matters which led to the Attorney-General's intervention, and describe the power under which it was taken. I shall also deal with the questions which have been asked, but given the shortness of time, if I omit some I shall endeavour to deal with them by correspondence.
From that I anticipate that it will be apparent for those with ears to hear that my right hon. and learned Friend acted with entire constitutional propriety, and that the attacks made upon him have been intemperate and unfounded.
Sequestration is a method by which a court enforces its judgments and orders by proceeding against the property of a person who is in contempt of court. It is a procedure of contempt of court. It can be employed by a court only where the person against whom it is employed is in contempt by disobedience of an order of the court. The purpose of sequestration is to enable the court to force a person in contempt of court to purge his contempt.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

The Solicitor-General: I have sat for three hours listening to the debate. I have 12 minutes in which to answer. I propose to do so and to address myself to the real issues. I come now to the status and function of the Attorney-General in matters which concern contempt of court. Holders of his office have traditionally had a role in cases of contempt of court. It was described by Lord Diplock in a quite recent case in the House of Lords—the Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers in 1973. Lord Diplock commended the practice adopted since 1954 whereby the Attorney-General accepts the responsibility of receiving complaints of contempt of court from parties in litigation and of making an application in his official capacity for committal of the offender if he believes this course to be justified in the public interest. Lord Diplock used these words:
He"—
meaning the Attorney-General—
is the appropriate officer to represent the public interest in the administration of justice. In doing so he acts in constitutional theory on behalf of the Crown, as do Her Majesty's judges themselves, but he acts on behalf of the Crown as the fountain of justice and not in the exercise of its executive function".
I come next to the appointment of sequestrators. Sequestrators were appointed by Mr. Justice Nicholls in the case of Taylor. The reason was that the union had not paid a fine imposed upon it by the court. The court therefore, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, appointed the sequestrators to seize the assets of the union in order to oblige the union to pay its fines. The hon. Member for


Oginore (Mr. Powell) asked why the Queen's Remembrancer procedure could not have been used. It was a method that could have been used but the court chose to use sequestrators. Either procedure was available. The court is not controlled by the Government. The court has a compltely untrammelled and independent jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Nicholls fined the NUM £200,000 on 10 October for contempt of court. He ordered that if the fine was not paid within 14 days he would consider ordering sequestration. That is what Mr. Justice Nicholls did.
I turn to the circumstances that led to the giving of the indemnity. By 12 November only about £8,500 of NUM assets had been seized by the sequestrators. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) asked whether or not certain properties are owned by the NUM. To our knowledge there are two. There may be more; I know of no others. Those properties are owned or lived in by Mr. Daly and Lord Gormley. They were known at the time of the Attorney-General's statement to be the property of the NUM, but my right hon. and learned Friend's statement was perfectly accurate. He said that they set about taking possession of the assets and that they had been able to seize assets only to the value of about £8,500. The vast majority of the remaining assets of the union, amounting to many millions of pounds, had been transferred by the union to banks in various foreign countries.
In proceedings taken in Dublin the sequestrators obtained an interim injunction in their action to secure funds that had been lodged in Dublin. The Dublin High Court had given an interim injunction and the sequestrators had obtained the agreement of the Irish judge to accept a bond for £2,500 to be paid for out of the sequestrated assets. The sequestrators undertook to use their best endeavours to find such a bond, but they experienced difficulty in finding insurers who would provide a bond in the market. A bond was ultimately obtained, but only after the indemnity was offered by the Attorney-General.
At that point, the sequestrators approached the court that had appointed them, and I understand that they expressed some concern that they were being asked to provide a bond and might be exposed to personal liability. They learnt from the court that it had no funds of its own. Learning of that—I hope that the House has expressed a genuine interest in what happened, because it is on that basis that I am endeavouring to give an accurate account of what occurred—the Attorney-General spoke to the senior sequestrator, Mr. Larkin, and learnt that the sequestrators had set aside £50,000 of their own money to be spent before they would go back to the court. In the opinion of the Attorney-General, it was on the cards that if that money were spent and no money from which the sequestrators could be reimbursed had been seized, they would go back to the court to seek a discharge.
It was as a result of that discussion about the difficulties facing the sequestrators that the Attorney-General decided that it would be in the public interest to offer the indemnity to cover the sequestrators' reasonable and proper costs.
I have been asked about consultation, and the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) asked whether, as he put it, the Prime Minister had any part. The Attorney-General was obliged to consult Ministers to discover whether the contingent liabliliy might be imposed on the Treasury. Following that discussion and consultation, he offered the indemnity, in the circumstances that he has already described to the House.
I have been asked by what authority the Crown is entitled to give that indemnity. The answer is that it was given under the common law powers of the Crown, which has the same freedom as any individual in the realm to give an indemnity unless precluded by statute. There is no such statute—

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I asked was whether the Prime Minister was involved. The Solicitor-General will not answer that question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): That is a matter for the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General: I have been asked about the Crown—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the bond.

The Solicitor-General: I have already said that a bond was ultimately obtained for £2,500, which is what was sought by the Irish court. However, it was obtained only after the indemnity had been put forward.
I said that the Crown's power derives from the common law and there is no statute in this case precluding the issuing of an indemnity by the Crown. It is entitled to take that action. Before any money can be paid under the indemnity, the Crown must get statutory authority, which is why a Consolidation Fund Act would be required if the money had to be paid.
On behalf of the Attorney-General, I want to make it clear what the argument is. My right hon. and learned Friend has been subjected tonight, in his absence, to attacks that reflect on his honour. [Interruption.] I wish to to have an opportunity to reply to them —[Interruption.] I shall reply to them, whatever the noise. Whatever issues this matter gives rise to, they will not be illuminated by my being shouted at by Opposition Members.

Mr. Rogers: They are certainly not being illuminated by the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General: Any Law Officer has to exercise his special jurisdiction as a guardian of the public interest and, indeed, his judicial jurisdiction in such a way as to exclude any consideration of party partisanship. That is fundamental to our arrangements. No Law Officer needs to have that pointed out. Any Law Officer knows that his decisions may be attacked as being improperly taken. I do not credit the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) with the common courtesy of having given my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General notice of what he was going to say.

Mr. Sedgemore: I expected him to be here for the debate.

The Solicitor-General: I do not credit the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch with having given him notice as the conventions—

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Solicitor-General to attack an hon. Member for not having given notice, when in the normal course of events the Attorney-General could be expected to reply to the debate? Cannot we have a modicum of common sense from the Solicitor-General?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I remind hon. Members that the debate has less than one minute to go.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch knows that he should have given notice, even if the Attorney-General was here. I say only that his allegations against my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General inspire in me a contempt very different in character from that with which we have been dealing.
Never before, to my knowledge, has there been a precedent for this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—but never has there been a precedent when a fine imposed by a court has been defeated, defied and frustrated by moving the assets overseas. This was an unprecedented strategy and it demanded an unprecedented intervention in the exercise of an undoubted jurisdiction by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The attacks on the propriety of his actions and of the courts I reject utterly; and I reject them with profound scorn.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, I must remind him that we are now in private Member's time. Any time now taken up will come off the time allotted to another hon. Member who has been fortunate in the ballot.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have presided over much of a very serious and important debate on the funds of a national trade union and on the effects for its members. During that debate, and particularly during the concluding speech of the Solicitor-General, two Tory Members were in the Chamber: one was in a penguin suit and he passed out during the debate. That does not show any respect to the Chair, or to the seriousness of the debate. That hon. Gentleman was the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).

Water Charges

Mr. Roger Freeman: I am pleased to have this chance to raise the question of how we charge for the supply of water. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is in the Chamber, and I hope that he will be replying to the debate. He has a keen interest in the water industry and, of course, in the environment. I look forward with special pleasure to his contribution.
I shall concentrate on water authority charges that are levied on the domestic consumer in England. I want to dwell on how those charges are levied rather than on the absolute level. I believe that there is a widely-held feeling of injustice, and that that has become much more apparent since the separation of water rates from the general municipal rate—a process that began in 1974. I and many other hon. Members are well aware of the fact that our constituents are basically discontented about the method of assessing water charges by using the rateable value of the consumer's property. Many consumers believe that that method is inaccurate and discriminatory.
We understand that water charges are likely to rise in the next financial year by somewhere between 8 and 13 per cent. In my area, the Anglian water authority warns of a rise of about 13 per cent. Those increases will only accentuate the inequities of the present method of charging.
I do not want to concentrate in this debate on the reasons for the increase in water rates, except in passing to refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, on which I serve, which reported on 3 December. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraphs 51 and 52 and simply read out the relevant sentences. In paragraph 51 the Committee says:
We consider that it is unnecessarily disruptive to increase industry's rate of return over such a short period.
The Committee is referring to the fact that the targets for the water industry are to be increased from approximately 1 per cent. rate of return on the assets valued at replacement cost to something like 1·9 per cent. over a four-year period.
In paragraph 52 the Committee concluded:
the time has come for a re-appraisal of the relative rates of return for all nationalised industries.
Those two recommendations are apposite to the water industry. I hope that we can return at some other suitable time to debate the way in which the water industry finances itself and the level of charges. But that is not my concern in this debate. My concern is how we charge for water, not what we charge.
The Water Act 1973 required the industry by April 1981 to ensure that its charging policy should be so organised and arranged that there should be no undue preference towards and no discrimination against any class of persons. That laudable aim has never been fulfilled.
By 1980 the National Water Council, which has now disappeared, in considering the basis of charging for water, baulked at the introduction of metering. It said:
Neither the economic benefits nor the benefit to consumers justify a commitment to universal metering at present.
How it could have reached that firm conclusion without evidence and extensive trials I do not know, but that was the conclusion then.
By the time we came to the 1983 general election it had become clear that there would be no wholesale reform of the rating system. Therefore, the pressure on the water industry to come up with an alternative method of charging had disappeared.
Since 1981 the Government have supported the earlier recommendation of the National Water Council, that the best way to proceed was optional, not universal, metering. Optional metering is unjust because the choice of installing meters is only really available to the comparatively rich, and certainly the careful and diligent. The present policy of optional metering does not answer the basic charge of inequity in the system.
I welcome the decision recently announced by the Government to establish a steering group, headed by the chairman of the Thames water authority, which is to report early in 1985 on the possible extension of domestic universal metering. Attitudes may be ready for change, and I welcome that.
It may be helpful to comment briefly on the present tariff and to note that the water industry has introduced standing charges and increased those standing charges as part of the total water bill in recent years. Essentially, the argument is that by introducing standing charges—fixed amounts—which the customer has to pay in addition to an assessment on the rateable value of his house, the inequity is to some extent modified. That may be true, but it is not a satisfactory answer to the basic charge of the inequity of the present system.
One might believe that people, being encouraged by the water authorities and the Government to opt to install meters, would do so with great alacrity and enthusiasm. That is not the case. Figures show that less than 1 per cent. of domestic households are metered.
Why is there such a lack of enthusiasm? There are two reasons. The first is the lack of promotion by the water authorities. The second, and probably more important, reason is the relatively high cost of installing a meter. At present, the installation and associated costs must be paid by the consumer up front, and those charges can be significant.
The case for universal metering for domestic consumers rests on three arguments. The first is equity. To charge by the rateable value method is grossly unfair, as I shall illustrate. Two families may live in similar houses next door to each other. A retired couple may live in one and a large family in the other. The large family may own two motor cars, if both husband and wife are working, and there may be a line of nappies out each day. I do not make a judgment on the relative social importance of both families, but their water charges are likely to be the same, although it is clear which family consumes most water. The method of charging is, therefore, unfair.
Secondly, universal metering would provide a better control of leakage. Experts in the industry estimate that water authorities lose about 25 per cent. of the total water supply before it is consumed in the household. The Government fully accept that figure. Leakage often goes beyond the curtilage of the household and the tap. That is a large percentage. With universal domestic metering, the chances of identifying and controlling leakage would be enhanced, but it would take time. Until we have electronic remote reading, it is unlikely that the householder will be able to detect leakage promptly and that the water authority will be able to put the pipes in good working order as quickly as it would otherwise do.
Thirdly, universal metering would have the value of introducing the price mechanism. The water industy should be regarded in the same way as the electricity and gas industries. The price mechanism should be available to match supply and demand. If we had universal metering, some of the investment decisions made in past years, including the Kielder project in Northumberland, might not have been made. The water authorities would have had better economic information against which to measure likely future demand.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says that the Kielder system is good. If he studies the use of the reservoir in recent years, he will agree, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing said, either that over-provision was made for Kielder or that the reservoir was built too early. I make no specific comment. I merely point out that, with the availability of price mechanism in the water industry, investment decisions could be more carefully taken.
The Government said that this year about £230 million is to be spent on reservoir construction. How is that large sum to be spent without the necessary information that other utilities have about the interplay between supply and demand provided by price mechanism? As financial pressures on the consumer mount, with higher water rates next year and perhaps in future years, the only equitable tariff structure would be one using universal meter.
I shall briefly mention the three principal arguments used against universal metering. The first is that it is regressive. However, social inequalities should be corrected by the welfare state, not by cross-subsidisation by the utility.
The second argument relates to public health. It is said that, with universal metering, some consumers would make false economies — reduce their consumption of water excessively and so endanger their health. There may be something in that argument. If we have a programme of universal metering, it must be introduced gradually and with a careful review of its public health impact.
The final argument against universal metering is that it is inordinately expensive. The present costs of optional metering are not directly relevant to an assessment of whether the nation should embrace universal metering and whether the Government should encourage it, largely because the economies of scale in a programme of universal metering would be such that present estimates of the cost of installing a meter to the consumer who has an option would not be relevant. The announcement of a universal metering programme would so stimulate the research into and development of new meters and methods of installation that costs would be reduced in that direction. The installation of meters could be privatised with benefit, as was the case with conversions to North sea gas. Private contractors could be charged with the responsibility for introducing meters on an area-by-area basis, and consumers could be asked to pay the cost, through the water authorities, during a 10 or 20-year period, rather than to pay the cost up-front, as is the case at present.
The reading of meters is expensive because it is carried out by inspectors on a meter-by-meter basis. If we have universal metering, there should be joint reading of gas, electricity and water meters, and eventually the introduction of electronic remote meter reading, which


would revolutionise the way in which the customer and the utilities could mutually control the supply of water, gas and electricity.
To sum up the economic case, I believe that when the National Water Council, in 1980, estimated that a saving of about 20 per cent. in domestic usage would be needed to justify universal metering, it was being too pessimistic. It said that the cost to the nation, and the cost to be borne by the consumer, could be justified only if consumption were reduced by 20 per cent. I believe that, because of the economies of scale argument that I have deployed and because of new techniques and meter designs, that figure is far too high. I would put it closer to 10 per cent. All the experience in Britain and other countries is that universal metering causes a reduction of at least 10 per cent. in consumption. Hence, the costs of metering could be paid easily.
I encourage the Government to consider a rolling programme of compulsory universal metering, to be paid for by the consumer over a long period, with the installation of new meters being performed by private plumbing contractors under the supervision and control of the water authorities. Initially the meters should be read jointly with the other utilities, but, in the long run, we should encourage the introduction of electronic remote meter reading, as that would enable both the consumer and the utility to control better the supply of this valuable and scarce resource. The time is now ripe for a new approach.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) for the fact that I missed the first few moments of his speech.
Water charges concern us all. I have one particular problem, to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. My hon. Friend touched briefly on reservoir building programmes and how they can affect water charges, and as I come from the west country, that theme strikes a particular chord with me. The House will be aware of the problems that there have been in that area. I shall not detain the House by cataloguing the various miseries that we in the west have undergone. To draw the strands together, I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction was in the west country this summer, standing in the middle of a reservoir, which was completely devoid of water, and which looked like a lunar landscape. The irony was that as he stood there, he had an umbrella over his head because it was raining.
The privations that we have undergone in terms of water shortages probably exceed, or at least equal, anything that any other part of the country has undergone. However, the end to these problems is in sight, because we are now to have our third strategic reservoir. When the Roadford reservoir is finally built, it will be approximately 15 years after the South-West water authority first asked that it should be provided. It will be 25 years after the predecessor authority identified the need for that reservoir. Although the end is in sight, it has not yet come, and when it does, it will not be a moment too soon.
The subject of this reservoir is directly referrable to water charges, through an unusual way. One of the

consequences that loss of regional status will have for the south-west of England will be on the way that the reservoir is funded. In turn, that will have an effect on water charges. Already, the South-West water authority is contemplating increasing water charges by at least twice the rate of inflation, and possibly by three times the rate of inflation. Therefore, anything that increases that process has a bearing on the water charges in the west country.
I am sure that I would be ruled out of order at once if I tried to twist the debate round, and made it a debate about the loss of regional aid in the west country, so I shall not do that. However, the direct effects that that has on Roadford are that whereas the South-West water authority could have expected at least £17 million in grant towards the project, it will now receive about £8 million, which is a loss £9 million. It has been receiving grants of £3 million a year for various projects, and that will go as well. There is some doubt about whether the authority will still be able to go to the European Investment Bank, from which it has already borrowed £35 million on rather advantageous terms and with which it is negotiating to obtain more.
One way in which that problem could be redressed would be if the water authority's capital programme were increased. I am aware, and I am grateful for it, that there has been a relaxation already, and that the Minister has said that the water authority can increase its capital programme by about £2 million. Even £2 million a year over the next three years will be more than accounted for by what is necessary to be able to implement the Control of Pollution Act 1974, an Act that was passed in times that were less frugal than ours. Although that makes some contribution, it does not begin to reduce the problems about Roadford that face us.
The people of the west country are in a unique position when considering the problems they have faced because of water shortages. Water is a regional resource, funded on a regional basis. That is the policy, and so be it. Many of the problems of the west country stem from the massive influx of tourism and the demand for water resources generally. It is at least arguable that we must examine the problem faced by the South-West water authority. We must do so, if not on a national basis, then on something approaching a national basis. I should like to believe that it may be possible to do something on a national basis to help the south-west to alleviate its problems with the Roadford reservoir.
In asking for an increase in the capital programme or for some other gesture by central Government to provide an exceptional course of action, I am saying that the west country is faced with an exceptional problem. People will be unhappy if they see, this late in the day, that the withdrawal of regional aid will mean that the long-awaited reservoir may impose, even now, an even greater burden in terms of water charges.
Obviously, regional aid and the effect on the various regions if it were withdrawn has been carefully considered by Government. I wonder whether anyone realised, at the time the measure was applied to the west country, its effect on the building of our third reservoir. Perhaps all too often people expect Government to be able to anticipate everything. I suspect that in this case the effect was not realised. An exceptional problem will probably now call for an exceptional remedy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for raising an important subject in a national and a parochial sense. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge will be noted. He comes from a region of the United Kingdom which has been perhaps most adversely affected by the lack of water supplies for a long time. I believe that my hon. Friend knows that I am a part-time resident of the south-west and am well aware of the great difficulties suffered by people in the region. I pay tribute to the water authority, especially to its chairman, Mr. Len Hill. I am also well aware of the privations suffered by the people. We understand fully what those people have had to put up with. I commend them for their tremendous efforts in overcoming the difficulties in the summer months. I hope that, by the end of this decade, the provision of additional facilities will guarantee that tourists who flood into that region will no longer cause the imbalance that occurred during the past two or three decades.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about the price mechanism and people's attitude when there is a widely held feeling of injustice is absolutely right. The problem faced by the centre and by the water authorities in presenting their case is to explain how charges are levied and how they have built up so swiftly during the past 10 years.
I do not want to be drawn into the problems of the Kielder dam. That case was based mainly on industrial demand growth forecasts. Such demand is already metered. Those of us who are concerned about overprovision in some regions must bear in mind the fact that reservoirs have a great deal to offer other than the major provision of water. They can provide a great diversification of interests for many people. That will be one of the attractive features that will assist the south-west of England. I can understand the anxieties of conservationists, but I believe that they must look wider to ascertain what greater diversification can mean.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My wife and I visited the area in the summer, and we were most impressed by what the people had done there.

Mr. Macfarlane: Those of us who have visited the area are well aware of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. There is a greater range of diversification.
I greatly welcome the opportunity to respond to the most interesting speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. He opened this debate by raising the question of metered charging for water. That is .an important question and it is very timely for hon. Members to be giving it their attention. As my hon. Friend said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has announced a new study of metering, under the leadership of Roy Watts, the chairman of Thames water. A first report is expected early next year. My Department will treat that with great urgency.
My hon. Friend referred to the disappointing outcome of previous studies under the auspicies of the former National Water Council. I share something of his sense of disappointment, but I think that it is important not to underestimate the significance of the fact that the

option of a meter, and hence of a volume-related charge, is now available to every consumer who cares to take advantage of it. The main reason for not going further up to now has been the dauntingly high cost of universal metering, which he mentioned. The meters are not expensive — perhaps £10 to f15 — but installation can cost significantly more, and those figures, when applied to some 18 million households, lead one to very large sums of money. Private contractors normally install meters and that is something of which we take note. Whoever picks up the bill, it is obviously right to ensure that outlays of that order are well justified.
However, there have been developments which could favour greater use of metering in the future—for for example, better technology, with the possibility of remote reading; the opportunity to take a new look at the savings that might result, whether from reduced leakage or postponement of major investments: and the authorities' positive interest in achieving a more businesslike relationship with their customers I look forward to the results of the study now being undertaken by Roy Watts, and I assure hon. Members that and my colleagues in the Department will keep the House informed of progress. We treat the review seriously and with urgency.
The subject of water charges is well chosen, for it is one which arouses much anxiety. It has aroused much press speculation which has been wrongly directed in recent months.
I am glad to have this opportunity to help my hon. Friends understand better what the Government have decided for water investment and water charges. I hope that what I say will prove a useful antidote to some of the more alarmist rumours that are being circulated. There have been some rather one-sided publicity campaigns.
One water authority has indeed gone so far as to offer hon. Members floating lectures on current cost accounting, with floating refreshments, on our very doorstep. That makes it all the more necessary to give Members a balanced account of the position.
Desirable objectives for the water industry include, first, higher investment to deal with problems and to raise standards, which have been lacking for several decades; secondly, greater efficiency to keep costs as low as possible; thirdly, a reasonable rate of return on the assets employed in the industry; fourthly, moderate charges increases; and, fifthly, a reduction in borrowing requirements, which count as public expenditure.
The problem is to arrive at a proper balance between those objectives. Higher investment has to be financed; and a low rate of return may help to keep charges down, but it can only add to the financing problem.
In recent years we have given priority to efficiency improvement. I am pleased to say that the response of the industry has been good. The performance aims agreed for 1983–84, which were to get real operating costs below their 1979–80 level, were bettered by about £10 million. New performance aims to bring further real cost reductions over the three years to 1986–87 have been agreed. Manpower in the water authorities is now 15 per cent. below 1979 levels. The new smaller boards which took office in October last year have brought a new dimension and a more businesslike approach to the management of the authorities. Hon. Members will appreciate the importance of good management when I remind them of


the size of this industry: turnover about £2 billion; net assets about £30 billion; annual investment over £700 million. I commend what the authorities have recently achieved and look forward with confidence to further progress in the future.
It was a previous Government who, between 1974 and 1979, reduced water services investment by half. However, since 1982, water investment has been on a rising trend because the reduction in inflation —particularly the steadiness of contract prices for construction work—has, enabled the water authorities to do more work within the cash limit. In 1983–84 water investment in England was planned to be £672 million, but the outturn was £711 million. This year the planned figure is £686 million, but again the indications are that a higher level will be achieved.
I am sure that hon. Members need no reminding of the importance of the investment programmes of the water authorities. I think that this goes to the heart of some of the problems in post-war Britain. Although water resources schemes amount to less than 5 per cent. of water investment, this includes projects like the Roadford reservoir in the south-west, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred, where the drought this summer stretched resources to the limit.
In water supply and distribution, we are fortunate in having 99 per cent. of the population receiving a piped supply of potable water. But the conditions of the mains in some areas gives cause for concern and there are quality problems — discoloration, rising nitrate concentrations and plumbo solvency, for example — which require attention and expenditure.
Worries about crumbling sewers have attracted much attention, but these problems can be overstated. I remind hon. Members that nearly half of our sewers are of post-world war 2 vintage and that the failure rate nationally is only about 16 events per 1,000 km per year, of which three quarters affect pipes of less than 9 in. diameter. Nevertheless, there are undoubted problems of deterioration in some regions, notably the north-west and Yorkshire. In other regions, new development has increased the load to be carried by the sewers beyond the design capacity so that foul flooding can occur when there is heavy rainfall.
The right approach to these problems is to press on with survey programmes in critical areas, which the authorities have been doing for some years. This year has seen the publication of the Water Research Centre's sewerage rehabilitation manual, which will help to put that work on a more systematic basis. Often the survey results are reassuring rather than the reverse, but, where problems are identified, the authorities provide in their investment plans for necessary remedial work.
Sewage treatment and disposal is the other main investment requirement. River quality improvement and upgrading of estuaries depend to a large extent on further improvements in sewage treatment works. Similarly, improvement in coastal waters may require long sea outfalls. Hon. Members will have noted the Government's recent response to the 10th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, published as pollution paper No. 22. That says:
The Government have told water authorities that … they intend that there should be a significant increase in their

investment thus reversing the previous trend. An important purpose is to provide for a faster rate of improvement in the aquatic environment generally, including estuarine and coastal waters on a priority basis.
This is one part of a larger change in our policy. The Government have reviewed their stragegy for water services investment and their financing. Their decisions are reflected in the external financing cash limit for 1985–86, which was announced in the Autumn Statement. The Government now wish to see an increase in investment in the water industry so as to make more progress with the maintenance and renewal of sewers and water mains and to secure further improvements in the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. We want to see the rate of return on water authority assets at a higher rate than the present average of about 1 per cent., and a reduction in water authorities' borrowing. For the English authorities, the increase in investment in 1985–86 is expected to be about £80 million to £769 million—both figures excluding land drainage. Future years' figures are provisional but should be about £820 million in 1986–87 and £870 million in 1987–88.
Financial targets will be set to raise the average rate of return achieved by the water authorities from its present average of about 1 per cent. to about 1·4 per cent. next year, 1·7 per cent. in 1986–87 and 1·9 per cent. in 1987–88. That will be done by setting targets for individual authorities so as to secure a 5 per cent. return on new investment from 1 April 1985 while raising the rate of return on assets existing at that date to about 1·75 per cent. by 1987–88. The targets will differ from authority to authority because of differences in the rate of return presently being earned and because of differences in investment levels, but the policy will be applied to all authorities.
The effect of these policies will be to enable the English water authorities' new net borrowing, excluding Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grants for land drainage, to be reduced from £237 million this year to £169 million in 1985–86, with further reductions in later years. The position will again vary from authority to authority, with some still borrowing in 1987–88 and others repaying debt, as Thames water is doing already. The higher financial targets will inevitably mean charges rising above the general rate of inflation. The figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering quoted in his opening remarks, when he said that there were variations between 8 per cent. and 13 per cent., are about right.
It is the cash generated by higher charges that enables higher investment to be funded and borrowing to be reduced. It is difficult to forecast precisely the increases that will be necessary, because they depend on real operating costs in each authority, including savings due to efficency improvements and cost inflation, as well as on the financial targets set by the Government. But the precise effect will become evident only as authorities set their budgets in about February each year. Our present best estimate is that the average increase may be about 5 per cent. above general inflation in 1985–86 and rather less in 1986–87 and 1987–88. There will be differences between regions, with relatively low increases in areas where efficiency savings are large — for example, in the Thames water authority area—or where investment is not increasing, as in the Northumbrian area.
Before concluding, I should like to say that I do not see how rates of return of between 1 and 2 per cent., as has


been said in some quarters, can constitute "monopoly exploitation" or "back-door taxation". They clearly do not. We have absolutely no intention of privatising the water industry. The Government have no plans to urge that upon the water authorities. There has been some press speculation about it in the past, but there is no intention to do so.
The average household bill this year is about £78, or 21p per day, so, if next year's increase is 10 per cent., it is an extra 2p a day. I do not believe that those are large sums when one considers the services provided—not just water supply, but sewerage, sewage treatment, facilities for water recreation and sea defence—and the enormous infrastructure of assets that has to be maintained, renovated or extended to keep those services at a high standard.
Several points were raised by both my hon. Friends. In the interest of time, I hope that they will allow me to write to them when I shall take up those points. These are serious and important issues. However, I believe that the targets that we have now set throughout the rest of the decade will ensure that there is a strategy for the water industry, and that can only be good for the consumer and the United Kingdom.

Miss Hilda Murrell (Murder)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There are several subjects that I care about, such as the financing of the BBC, teachers' pay, service and conditions, Scotland and Ethiopia. So, I shall be rapid and succinct on this subject.
I did not know the late Miss Hilda Murrell personally—though as a gardener, and sometime beekeeper, I am, of course, familiar with the beautiful rose to which she gave her name. On 24 March of this year, her body was found in a wood just outside Shrewsbury. She was in her 79th year, and had been dead for some time. On 5 December, 1984, the inquest was held in Shrewsbury. A verdict of unlawful killing was brought in, and the coroner thanked all those involved. End of the matter? Just another statistic among unsolved murders? Well, no, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The police are quoted as saying that the facts are still being held back, on the grounds that it is necessary to keep them out of the press, as the murderer has not been caught. The police version of some wandering "nutter"-type burglar breaking in, and then attacking the lady when she came home unexpectedly, does not tally in any way with what was obviously a sophisticated break-in, with a purpose that was not conventional burglary.
My interest in the case of the late Miss Murrell was aroused in mid-November when I was told, anonymously, that I ought to read carefully an article in the New Statesman, of 9 November, 1984, entitled the "Death of Miss Murrell", by Judith Cook. Knowing that Hugh Stephenson, editor of the New Statesman, would not have given the article such prominence without reason—I am a New Statesman subscriber — and knowing that anything under the by-line of Judith Cook is worth my attention, I did so. I do not doubt that those who brief the Minister have shown him Judith Cook's article.
Approaching one of my now numerous sources on the Belgrano, who has proved careful, accurate and serious, I learnt that Miss Murrell's nephew, Rob Green, mentioned in the article by name, had indeed occupied a key position in naval intelligence during the Falklands campaign. I was informed that Commander Green was in a position to know about the receipt and despatch of signals to and from HMS Conqueror, and intercepted signals from the Belgrano to the Argentine mainland and back, from both British and American sources.
However, at the outset I say candidly to the Minister that Rob Green has not approached me, that through an intermediary I have let him know that, if he wanted to talk to me, he would be welcome, and that to the best of my rather extensive knowledge, he has behaved absolutely properly as a naval officer loyal to the Navy in not talking about information gleaned when in the Navy.
The following questions flow from Judith Cook's article of 9 November and from other discussions that I have had.
Why did the police tell the press that Hilda Murrell's house had been ransacked when it later became clear that it had not been ransacked?
Whoever had been in the house had clearly been looking for something in a methodical manner. Some drawers and cupboards were open but not dissaranged.
In an odd way, it is like the Belgrano affair—small inconsistencies seem to be part of larger inconsistencies and small lies part of larger lies.
Miss Murrell's house had been carefully searched and her papers gone through, but in an orderly manner. Her telephone had been cut off in such a way that, although it was dead from inside the house, anyone calling would seem to hear it ringing out. The police agree that that is a sophisticated way of doing things—not exactly the actions of a common burglar looking for loose money and taking a chance. Moreover, not only had the telephone at Miss Murrell's home at Ravenscroft, Shrewsbury, been tampered with — the phone at her cottage over the border in Wales had been disconnected.
Later the police said that the 78-year-old lady had been sexually assaulted. Why did they say thay when it turned out on their own evidence to be untrue? What is the purpose of that kind of inaccuracy other than to sweep uncomfortable suspicions under the carpet?
The farmer who discovered Miss Murrell's car slewed on to a verge reported it to the police and I understand that the local policeman reported it to the Shrewsbury police. Two days later the self-same car was still there. The farmer again reported it to the policeman, who reported it to the Shrewsbury police.
What did the Shrewsbury police do about the second report? If they were short-staffed because too many were away dealing with miners' picket lines, the House ought to be told. I understand that, even on Friday 23 March, the Shrewsbury police failed to follow up the report. They then said that the wrong registration number had been fed into the Swansea computer. Is that true?
Does a police force which, I am told, has a good reputation for efficiency normally act like that or was it told on high authority to act in such an uncharacteristically incompetent and slapdash way? Why did the police behave out of character? Ministers should tell us. I am told by more than one of the people interviewed by the police that they instinctively felt that the police officers knew jolly well that their time was being wasted and that they were having to go through the motions of a large-scale investigation for cosmetic reasons.
On Saturday 24 March, having at last identified the car as Miss Murrell's, police began to search the field and the copse near the car with a gamekeeper's wife. It was this lady who found Miss Murrell's body, noting that the time put down for its discovery was correctly 10.30 am. Yet I understand that the police told Rob Green, Miss Murrell's nephew, that his aunt's body was found much later and that they then changed their story and said that it was found at 7 am. Did the police give those two stories and, if so, why? Members of Miss Murrell's family see a series of police errors and the contradictory information that the police had given them was not cleared up at the inquest on 5 December.
The West Mercia police say that they forced an entry into Miss Murrell's house at 6 am on Saturday 24 March. Yet several credible witnesses say that they saw men in police uniform at the house on Friday night. How could that be? Were two police forces involved? At what time were the West Mercia police joined, if at all, by the Suffolk police responsible for Sizewell security? More particularly, why was the special branch involved at that stage? Why was it necessary to force an entry into Miss

Murrell's house or to claim to have done so when I am told that the back door was unlocked? The curtains had been drawn and the light left on since the Wednesday of Miss Murrell's death.
I am told that members of the public who have come forward with different bits of information have been made to feel excessively foolish. Equally, I am told that this is quite uncharacteristic of the West Mercia police, who are usually models of courtesy, welcoming information from the public. Why should the police act out of character? Is it because not one but two sets of police were involved, neither of which appeared to know what the other was doing?
I can easily understand the work of the local police under Chief Detective Superintendent David Cole, brought in from Worcester, whose manners appear to have been exemplary and whose kindness and good sense were a credit to the police of this country. However the local police have, I gather, now agreed that the special branch was involved, and I understand that my praise for the local police does not in all cases apply to the special branch.
Will the Minister explain what special branch was doing so early in the case of the murder of a 78-year-old ex-rose-grower, if it really was a simple burglary?
Why have the family not been given a copy of the postmortem report? A man who was capable, two years before, of organising crucial aspects of the British battle fleet in the south Atlantic, and who earned a special citation from the Commander-in-Chief of the fleet, is capable of reading a post-mortem report.
Rob Green says:
They had said that they would answer questions about it, but you can imagine our difficulties as, since we had no idea what was on it, we did not know what to ask.
When he identified the body, Commander Green saw a mark of a blow under Miss Murrell's eye. There also appear to have been stab wounds, but insufficient to kill her. Did she, as the police say, die of hypothermia? Or was she killed by a person or persons? What does the Minister now say?
Why was a second autopsy carried out, and her family refused this too? Why was the body returned in a zinc-lined coffin in August? I can understand the police advice not to look inside, by that time, but why had so much time passed? Naturally, the body was then cremated.
Why was the Gower autopsy not published? The coroner, Colonel Crawford Clarke, has said that a second autopsy had to be held because the body was deteriorating, and that there had to be a second autopsy in case an assailant was charged. However, a body can be kept on ice.
The late Helen Smith, flown back from sweltering Jeddah, was kept for much longer. Is it normal practice to keep a body, and suddenly demand an autopsy at short notice in case an unnamed assailant is charged?
When it came, I am told that the cremation was carried out in a heck of an indecent hurry. What is the explanation? Is it not the case that the proper forensic procedures seem to have been blocked? Why? And why were the family not told that they could have an independent autopsy? Suspicions can only be laid to rest by answers.
The owner of the land on which the body was found, Mr. Scott, has stated emphatically both to the police and to the family of Miss Murrell that he was walking in the copse on the Thursday afternoon after the murder. He had


been carefully examining his property, as it was used as a game reserve. As a countryman, he said that he would have noticed the body of a rabbit, let alone a person. Did Mr. Scott lie? People who know him doubt it very much. He has no motive, and his neighbours say that he is not that kind of man. If he is correct, Miss Murrell's body must have been moved after her death. Why cannot the family and others have the accurate details of the autopsy, to let them know? I am told that a local poacher has now come forward to corroborate Mr. Scott's statement that there was no body in that copse on the Thursday afternoon.
There is also the evidence of my friend, Mr. Gerard Morgan Grenville, whom I have known for nearly 40 years. Mrs. Morgan Grenville tells me how Hilda Murrell rang them up in a great state at the end of February, and how she fetched her husband. Mr. Morgan Grenville, with whom I have had a good deal to do and who is a deeply serious man, says that her parting words on the telephone were:
If they don't get me first, I want the world to know that one old woman has seen through their lies".
One is reminded of Scudder, the diarist in John Buchan's "The Thirty-Nine Steps'. Mr. Morgan Grenville had never heard Miss Murrell speak in that way before. Why should an old lady be prompted to say that? There has been speculation that her death was connected with a paper that she had written on the problems of nuclear waste and reactor choice, which she hoped would be read at the Sizewell B inquiry. Arthur Osman, writing in The Observer on 2 December, began his article:
Silkwood parallels in English woman's death … Was anti-nuclear power campaigner Hilda Murrell murdered because she was becoming too much of a nuisance to the industry?
Since, more than 22 years ago, as a new Member of Parliament who was technologically minded and on the Public Accounts Committee, I was befriended by the late Sir Christopher Hinton, who later became Lord Hinton of Bankside OM—he was a great man and a great engineer and chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board—I have had dealings with many in the top echelons of the CEGB and and the Scottish generating boards. I cannot believe for one mini-second that Sir Walter Marshall, any of his colleagues, my friend Con Allday and others from the nuclear industry, would dream of authorising minions to search the house of a 78-year-old rose grower who had elegantly expressed, but unoriginal, views on reactor choice and nuclear waste disposal.
Besides. I have been to the great Peter Pears Benjamin Britten hall where the Sizewell inquiry is being held. I listened to evidence on day 178 and talked afterwards to Sir Frank Layfield. Those people will not fuss about Hilda Murrell and her evidence, for heaven's sake.
However, Commander Green says publicly:
I am led to one solution only—that the break-in was to look for information, rather than valuables.
He said:
I have a series of questions I want to ask about the police handling of the case, particularly their view of the proposition that the intruder—because he has no authority to kill her—had no alternative but to abduct her. Later that night he may have returned, put on the lights and drew curtains to make it look like an attempted burglary. He also left evidence to suggest a sex angle.
The inquest raised more real questions than it answered.
All of these inconsistencies point away from a random murder, and therefore away from the official explanation.
This background leads me to give credence to another version of events which has come my way as a receptacle of information about the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano.
First, I must candidly tell the Minister that in my previous 22 years in the House, I should have gone privately to the Home Secretary, regardless of party. I should have gone to "Rab" Butler, Henry Brooke, Frank Soskice, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), Reggie Maudling, Robert Carr, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) or Willie Whitelaw. I have known them all and had dealings with them all. However, to some Ministers in the present Government, to whom I have been the subject of ridicule and deception, I am not prepared to go. I say in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that least of all am I prepared to go to the present Home Secretary, who makes the types of speech about the miners that bring disgrace to the great office that he holds. I am not simply prepared to go to the present Home Secretary.
The story that I am told is as follows. In the early spring, the Prime Minister and Ministers close to her were getting very nervy about incessant questioning on the Belgrano in general and about signals, intercepted signals, and GCHQ at Cheltenham, which would call into question their truthfulness to the House, in particular. This was pre-Ponting. There were a number of suspicions about people dating from 19 and 20 December 1983, when I tabled questions to the Prime Minister about GCHQ Cheltenham, which are recorded in the Order Paper and Hansard.
Because Commander Robert Green was known to be unhappy about certain aspects of the Falklands war and was known to have wanted to leave the Navy, he came under a cloud of suspicion, wrongly, to the best of my knowledge, but certainly under a cloud of suspicion. It was thought that he might have copies of documents and raw signals that incriminated the Prime Minister, some of the originals of which had been destroyed on instructions from a very high level by the intelligence services.
Just as those of us who have had certain documents have taken the precaution of keeping them in friends' or relatives' houses while we have them, so it was thought that some of Rob Green's supposed records might be in the home of the aunt to whom he was close.
I suppose—I say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who I hope will have the opportunity of contributing to the debate—that one cannot complain that the suspicion fell on Rob Green, as he was one of the officers at the very heart of the Falklands operation. He was one of the very few to have left the service, although I understand that he had decided to go before the Falklands crisis blew up.
I am also given to understand—and I am happy to accept it—that there was no premeditated intention of doing away with Miss Murrell—only a search of her house when she was out. Alas, on Wednesday 21 March she returned unexpectedly to change. The intruders either arrived while she was dressing or were disturbed by her. Being a lady of courage and spunk, often found in that generation of women, Miss Murrell fought them. They too had to fight. They injured her and panicked.
I am informed that the intruders were not after money or nuclear information but were checking the house to see


if there were any Belgrano-related documents of Commander Green in the home of his aunt. Things went disastrously wrong. They had no intention of injuring, let alone killing, a 78-year-old ex-rose grower. Yet, being the lady she was and in her home, Hilda Murrell fought and was severely injured. She was then killed or left to die from hypothermia, and the cover-up had to begin, because I am informed that the searchers were men of the British intelligence.
If Ministers cannot solemnly deny my belief about the participation of intelligence, on whose ministerial authority, if any, did the search of Miss Murrell's home take place? Was there clearance, or was this the intelligence services "doing their own thing"? Did they do it on political orders, and if so, on whose orders? Some of us have had increasing misgivings about the role of the intelligence services in this country—again I say this in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—in connection with the miners' strike.
It is high time that there was a Select Committee of Privy Councillors to keep an eye on our intelligence services. Such a Select Committee would be a more appropriate forum than a Consolidated Fund debate, but until that happens, and given my opinion of present senior Ministers—un-British in their behaviour compared with Ministers of previous Governments — I have no alternative but to ask these questions under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, none of the situations for which the privileges of the House of Commons exist.
I ought to add that Commander Rob Green was, I am told, the person who physically sent the signal to Conqueror that sank the Belgrano. I understand from his friends that he was also responsible for passing signals from Endurance which had shown beyond any reasonable doubt that an invasion of the Falklands was likely to happen.
Rob Green considered the Falklands to be an unnecessary war, and the Belgrano sinking appalled him—albeit he judged it to be an unfortunate necessity—as it did some other senior officers of the senior service. He took early retirement after 20 years in the Navy and left. From this Prime Minister and her colleagues he would come under suspicion. It is from the head of our security services that Parliament should be demanding an explanation, because of one thing I am certain—that there are persons in Westminster and Whitehall who know a great deal more about the violent death of Miss Hilda Murrell than they have so far been prepared to divulge.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: All hon. Members will have listened with a great deal of concern and a degree of admiration to the speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He is well known in the House and performs a great service by introducing deeply and carefully researched questions of this kind. He brings them forward with a great deal of courage and conviction.
Commander Bob Green is a member of the Liberal association in my constituency. I have known him for some time. The details brought forward in the speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow were totally unknown to me until last night he did me the courtesy of allowing me to read his speech. One does not necessarily have to agree

with the conclusions that the hon. Member has reached to recognise fully the serious nature of the questions he has rightly put and which need to be answered.
First let me deal with some of the facts. I have not carried out detailed research into the facts put forward by the hon. Member. However, I have the highest respect for Commander Bob Green. I asked the hon. Member if I could ring Commander Green and read his speech to him. The hon. Member allowed me to do so. Therefore, I rang Commander Green and read to him the speech of the hon. Member. I have his authority to say that he confirms and corroborates all that the hon. Member has said. The details and facts are precisely as Commander Green sees them. Where the hon. Member has referred to Commander Green, Commander Green assures me that he agrees with the hon. Member's references.
It is also fair and proper to make the point that Commander Green has in no way collaborated with the hon. Member for Linlithgow in drawing up his speech. What the hon. Member has done is entirely on his own behalf. Commander Green has had no contact whatsoever with the hon. Member. Therefore, the comments that the hon. Member was kind enough to make about the part played by Commander Green are entirely substantiated. The facts that the hon. Member has given and the conclusions he has drawn accord precisely with those of Commander Green. In no way can it be said that the hon. Member for Linlithgow has taken the name of Commander Green in vain.
I turn from the facts of the matter to the conclusions that the hon. Member has reached. They are the hon. Member's own conclusions. However, I fully understand, as will those who tomorrow read this text with some interest, how the conclusions the hon. Member has drawn are capable of being supported by the questions that he has asked. In that sense, his conclusions and questions are far too serious to be dismissed lightly. I have observed on many occasions in the past, even when the hon. Member for Linlithgow has asked questions with which I do not agree, that from time to time the Government have used, as the hon. Member mentioned in his speech, a degree of ridicule in order to dismiss them. That would be wholly inappropriate on this occasion and I am certain that the Minister will not attempt to do so. These are very important questions of fact and detail. I very much hope that the Minister will answer them. If he is unable to answer all of these questions now, no doubt he will give answers in detail my means of letter.
In the absence of detailed answers to the detailed questions which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has put, I believe that there is only one way forward: a full inquiry in front of a High Court judge. I hope that other hon. Members will support that kind of inquiry. We do not call at this stage for such an inquiry. We merely say that if the Minister is unable or unwilling to answer questions of fact in detail, that is the only proper way forward.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that the conclusions drawn by the hon. Member for Linlithgow are deep and serious. Most of the evidence suggests that they are possibilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to dismiss them unequivocally. The hon. Member used the word "solemn". It is an unhappy fact that a number of the Government's actions, including those following the Belgrano incident, have done much to raise suspicions among those of us who would like to support the Government in the difficult decisions that they had to take


in time of war. The hon. Gentleman and I may part company over the Belgrano issue, because Governments often have to take extremely difficult decisions in time of war and they are entitled to the support of the democratic process, expressed through the House — even if the decisions prove in the cold light of day to have been wrong. The one case in which the Government would not be entitled to the support of the House and the country would be if they had acted with the specific intention of saving or assisting their political operations afterwards. We would almost have to get inside the minds of Ministers to discover whether that had happened.
However, the Government's campaign of misinformation on occasions and inadequate answers to questions has kept the Belgrano issue alive and caused suspicion and concern among those of us who would like to be able to support them. We would not like to have such suspicions of any British Government. I hope that the Minister will deal unequivocally with the conclusions drawn by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, so that the matter is not allowed to rumble on. The Minister has a duty to do that.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow touched on the broader issue of the intelligence services. My party and I have always pressed the need for a Select Committee of Privy Councillors to deal with intelligence matters. The intelligence services are not sufficiently accountable to the House. The mechanism for such accountability needs to be chosen carefully. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, my party has always believed that there should be a Select Committee of Privy Councillors. It would have been much better if the hon. Member for Linlithgow had been able to take his case to such a Committee in private, rather than being forced to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: With the first so-called Ponting information, I went to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I would have preferred to go to a Select Committee of Privy Councillors or a Select Committee dealing specifically with intelligence. It has never been any part of my case to criticise service men or to denigrate the services. No criticism of anyone involved in the task force has ever escaped my lips; the only exception is Lord Lewin, but I criticised him in his capacity as a member of the War Cabinet and not as an admiral.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that clear, because he is significantly misunderstood on that matter. I support him. Many former service colleagues of mine who were involved in the incident at various levels believe that the hon. Gentleman is doing a considerable service.
It would have been more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman's case had been dealt with by a Select Committee of Privy Councillors instead of on the Floor of the House. Such a Select Committee would be the best mechanism for ensuring the accountability of the intelligence services to the democratic process.
I come to another central issue. It is important and necessary to have that accountability because, if the intelligence services are to operate at all effectively or properly, they must operate under appropriate political control. Indeed, I would go further and say that the intelligence services can do their job effectively only if they are closely connected with the whole political system,

are very much under political control and are able to influence the political system in an appropriate and proper fashion.
At the very heart of this issue lies the system that we now refer to as "clearance". The intelligence services have to receive clearances at various appropriate levels, including at the very highest level—that of the Prime Minister—before taking any action. I have no doubt that action such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow would, under normal circumstances, have had to be approved at the very highest level.
If what the hon. Member says is true, it is inconceivable that it could have occurred in normal circumstances other than with agreement at the very highest level. But if that did not happen, there must have been a significant breakdown in the way that our intelligence services are controlled. One must reach one or other of those conclusions if the hon. Gentleman's thesis is supportable. Either a politician at a very high level was involved in taking the decision to allow such action to go ahead, or there must have been a very serious breakdown in the democratic and political accountability and control of our intelligence services.
Those are the only two conclusions. Naturally, we shall have to wait and see whether the hon. Gentleman's overall theory is supportable, but, if it is, those conclusions inevitably follow. There are many people, including me, who, because of friends and contacts, have reason to worry that the traditional and appropriate control of this country's intelligence services has become much looser than appropriate and much less regulated than is necessary within a democracy.
Whatever the case with regard to the intelligence services and the conclusions drawn by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, the facts that he has presented are very serious and important. I hope that the Minister will now be able to answer our very serious concerns, and that he will make an unequivocal statement about the overall conclusion that has been reached.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow for raising this important subject and for giving us the opportunity to hold this extremely serious debate.

Mr. Clive Soley: The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a debt not only for raising this issue, but for the way in which he has pursued the Belgrano affair by — as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) implied — directing himself not at the service men involved but at the operation that controlled the naval movements at the time.
My hon. Friend has given us the sort of story that would tax the ingenuity of a novelist. However, it is precisely at such times that we should remember that truth can be stranger than fiction. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to dismiss it as some form of creative literature or to put it down to a colourful imagination. My hon. Friend has put very real questions to the Minister and they deserve answers.
Like my hon. Friend, I realise that those questions cannot be answered easily or quickly. No one, perhaps, expects the Minister to give full and detailed answers now. But we, and others outside the House, expect him to put before the country in due course a satisfactory explanation of events, or to set up an inquiry to ensure that events are looked into in more depth. We may then be reassured that


the implications developed by the hon. Member for Yeovil have no foundation. Obviously, we should prefer a more conventional explanation, but we cannot assume that there is one until those questions have been answered.
It is important to remember that my hon. Friend has pursued this matter and the related matter of the Belgrano in a way that has not only respected the integrity of those involved in the military operation, but revealed the extraordinary accuracy of his research. He has, literally on a one-man operation, been able to demonstrate that the Government's arguments have not held together over a period of time. They have had to change their story from time to time, and it must be to my hon. Friend's credit that his research has brought that to light.
Not only is my hon. Friend's research accurate, but so are the sources of his information. I know those to be extremely good sources of information. The Minister and many others must be deeply disturbed by the quality of the information that is always available to my hon. Friend. He uses that information to deploy his case well.
I hope that if the Minister cannot give us answers today, he will be able to reassure the House that he will ensure that those answers are provided at some stage and in some context.
There is the wider issue of the control of the security forces. It has long been the view of the Labour party, and certainly of myself, that the security forces should be under much greater political control, answerable to the House in a more direct and effective manner than they have been in the past. Anyone who has been connected with Northern Ireland will know the importance of that. The security forces have grown in number and sophistication in recent years, and to rely on the control of either the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister, answerable to the House, must be grossly inadequate in any democracy.
A suggestion has been put forward for a Committee of Privy Councillors. I always want to question whether a committee need necessarily be composed of Privy Councillors. There are other ways of dealing with the matter. We shall never give hon. Members sufficient weight and authority unless we are prepared to recognise that each can act responsibly and properly on such a Committee.
I am prepared to move on the nature and type of democratic control of the security forces. We cannot go on much longer with the present system of control. It brings the country into disrepute and leaves unanswered questions such as those asked by my hon. Friend. It must be fundamentally dangerous for any democracy to be left with the feeling that adequate answers are not forthcoming. If the public feel that there are cover-ups, that people are trying to avoid difficult questions and that the structure of the democracy is not good enough to bring matters out, the credibility of that democracy will be undermined. Sooner or later that must change. My hon. Friend, by the way in which he has brought the matter out, has done a service not only to the House but to the nation as well.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House has listened, as I suspect it always does listen, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)

with great interest. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was kind enough to say that he had no information about what the hon. Gentleman would bring before the House until a few hours before the debate commenced. The hon. Gentleman will be of the clear opinion that I had no information about what was in the hon. Gentleman's request to raise this issue on the Consolidated Fund until the moment of his utterances.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, whom I am pleased to say I have known for some 30 years, will recognise that any response that I give him will lack not only the measure of courtesy that I would wish to extend to him in being able to provide him with answers to the questions that he has posed, but also, inevitably, the factual background against which any ministerial answer should be given.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I cannot answer the many questions that he raised. The inferences he drew went substantially further than the topic set down for debate. We are here to discuss the police investigation into a death that occurred in tragic circumstances. Both the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Yeovil sought, reasonably, to argue the case for a different form of control over the security services in relation to the incident at the centre of the debate.
I make my second point as an observation, the reason for which may become more evident. We are considering a fairly substantial police investigation into the alleged murder of an old lady. Thousands of people have been involved, and the inquiry is continuing. Regrettably, it has not been concluded. If a police inquiry is continuing and its scale has reached these proportions, it may be considered odd, if there were a British security element involved in the investigation, or occasioning the crime for which the investigation has been set up, that it should continue without those involved being able to ensure that the police and the security services are sharing common knowledge. That is merely an observation. It requires a great deal of weight to be attached to it. Considering the time that I have had to listen to the important revelations of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I am bound to make that observation.
My task is to deal with the police investigation. I appreciate the words the hon. Gentleman uttered regarding the reputation of the West Mercia force, and his comments, many of which were complimentary, in describing the case. I trust that no police force would wish to tackle such a tragic incident without the fullest degree of care, skill and energy. If there is any doubt about that, I shall express great anxiety, but I believe that the force has tackled it in that way.
The House will wish me to put on record the details of the incident as conveyed to me by the chief constable of West Mercia because that is where the problem currently lies. Had we been able to book an individual or individuals, it may have provided many of the answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I say "may" because his questions were numerous and far-reaching. A concluded investigation which results in charges being preferred and a trial being held may be the natural order of events for an investigation into a death associated with violence, and the correct way in which the factual background of the incident and the motive should be deployed for public view. Any other way would be less than conclusive.
The hon. Gentleman expressed an interest previously in a written question about the case of Miss Murrell. It is


right that I should respond on the basis of information that we have obtained from the chief constable. In doing so, I must draw attention—as I believe I have—to the fact that the story is incomplete. There are some facts which it would be inappropriate for me to disclose. If I did no, it might hinder the police inquiries that are continuing and might prejudice their questioning of any suspect who might be apprehended.
Miss Murrell, who was 79-years-old at the time of her death, according to our information, lived alone in her house—

Mr. Ashdown: There seems to be some confusion about Miss Murrell's age. Her nephew, Commander Green, assures me that she was 78 at the time of her death. It is a small point, but one which I should mention to the Minister.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has impeccable authority for that, for correcting me. Let the record state that she was 78. She lived alone in her house at Sutton road, Shrewsbury, and she also had a cottage in Wales. She was known to be a member of several clubs and associations connected with conservation and the environment, and she had a substantial reputation as a rose grower. She was also involved, but certainly not solely concerned with, groups connected with nuclear disarmament. The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to her interest in nuclear waste and to the paper that she had prepared. Some press reports after the inquest into her death noted primarily her interest in rose growing as the most important feature in her life.
Miss Murrell's body was found in a coppice at 10.25 am on Saturday 24 March 1984 by a police constable, accompanied by the wife of the local gamekeeper. In subsequent police circulations about the offence, the time of 10.40 am was used, which was the time at which other officers summoned to the scene arrived. The police surgeon attended the site and certified death at midday. The senior investigating officer, a detective chief superintendent, arrived at 1.30 pm, followed shortly afterwards by a Home Office pathologist, who further examined Miss Murrell's body, which was then taken to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital.
The likely sequence of events—the hon. Gentleman will understand that I must say the "likely" sequence—preceding the discovery of Miss Murrell's body has been pieced together by the police on the basis of information from many witnesses who came forward to assist them. On the morning of Wednesday 21 March 1984, Miss Murrell went to local shops in Shrewsbury, about a mile from her home. She travelled there in her white Renault car, and was seen shopping there between 11 am and midday. It is also known that she visited her local bank, where she cashed a cheque. Her return home at approximately midday was confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom had a brief conversation with her.
Subsequent police examination of Miss Murrell's home found no evidence of forcible entry, but that access could have been gained by an intruder through an insecure door. On her return from the shops, Miss Murrell had apparently had time to change from her outdoor clothing and to put away some of her shopping. There is then evidence that, in an upstairs room, a struggle took place with the offender, who had apparently previously made a systematic search of the premises, drawn the front downstairs curtains and left on the electric light.
Miss Murrell was then taken by the intruder in her car and driven approximately six miles to the scene of her death. Numerous witnesses have been able to provide details of the route of the journey, during which Miss Murrell sat in the passenger seat. The journey ended with the car being parked on the side of the road near the coppice, in the position in which it was subsequently found when the police were called to it. It seemed that the car had collided with both sides of the banked verges of the road, and then been driven into a ditch, from which an unsuccessful attempt had been made to remove it. Miss Murrell was then taken to the coppice by her abductor, beaten and stabbed, and possibly, as the coroner subsequently concluded, left to die of hypothermia.
Although, on the day after it was left there a local witness passed near to where Miss Murrell's body was subsequently found, he saw nothing, but the police are satisfied that the lie of the land may have hidden it from his sight. A local farmer first reported to the police, on the afternoon of 12 March that Miss Murrell's car was in the ditch in the position it had obviously been left by her assailant. The officers who arrived to investigate within an hour made only a preliminary search of the immediate area and, because there were no apparent suspicious circumstances, only superficial damage to the car and no apparent danger or obstruction to the public from the car, took no further action there. The car registration number was checked on the national computer and its ownership established. A police constable visited Miss Murrell's home early in the evening on Friday 23 March but, although he saw signs of habitation and the back door unlocked, he did not search the house as he assumed that nothing was amiss, despite being unable to make contact with anybody there. However, following a further telephone call to the police on the afternoon of 23 March to report that Miss Murrell's car was still in the ditch, officers went to her home later that evening, discovered that she was missing and a search was instituted the following morning with the results that I have already described.
Clearly, the police made detailed searches of both Miss Murrell's home and of the coppice to discover any information that might be of use in their inquiry. Reports of a grey-suited man having been seen running away from the coppice area at the relevant time of 21 March were also investigated and a reconstruction was staged. Despite 48 witnesses having been traced and further public appeals, the police have not yet been able to identify the man. The police also made extensive enquiries to trace people who might have been in Sutton road, where Miss Murrell lived, in the days preceding and the day of her murder. Over 100 people were identified as having been in the area, 50 of them on the day of the murder. Tracing these people formed a major part of the police inquiry and the process of elimination has resulted in only three of them remaining untraced at present.
From the considerable information that has been made available to me by the police it has become quite clear that the West Mercia police have devoted substantial resources to the investigation of what they see as a very grave offence. We all share their concern—that undoubtedly goes for the hon. Member for Linlithgow — that the offender is still at large.
I shall give some of the figures about the extent of the police inquiry. Some 3,500 people have been suggested as the potential offender by the public, police officers or by


research on local and national intelligence indexes. Out of this number, 962 people have been identified for interview, and over half of them have already been interviewed. Over 1,300 telephone messages had been received by 30 November, over 2,000 statements taken and over 55,000 items of information recorded, both manually and on computer in the incident room.
As at 30 November again, nearly 12,000 people had been interviewed, over 4,500 houses visited and over 1,500 vehicles checked. I make these points not just because I think that this is an example of the tenacity and thoroughness with which the West Mercia constabulary are investigating this matter, but because even if some believe the inferences drawn by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, there has still been a massive orthodox investigation into the tragic events surrounding Miss Murrell's death.
In the initial stages of their investigation, the police made full inquiries into suggestions that Miss Murrell had been murdered because of her connections with various anti-nuclear organisations, in particular that she was at the time of her death preparing a paper to oppose the Sizewell B project. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for dismissing that suggestion out of hand, with the probity that we know him to possess. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. A senior investigating officer assigned a small team specifically to inquire into those aspects, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to note that no evidence has been found to link those activities with her death.
The police have also sought the assistance of other forces both here and overseas in analysing the considerable data available to them to prepare a profile of a likely offender by the best techniques possible. This profile closely mirrors the picture of the offender formed by the West Mercia police. Extracts of the profile have been publicised on television and in the press, and they clearly have resulted in some of the substantial public responses to which I have referred. The police investigation continues.
The inquest into Miss Murrell's death was held at Shrewsbury magistrates' court on 5 December, where both Miss Murrell's family and the police were represented by solicitors. The evidence presented to the coroner by the police was that which I have described; and on the basis of this and evidence given by the Home Office pathologist, the coroner recorded a verdict that Miss Murrell died probably on 21 March 1984 as a result of hypothermia, the victim also suffering from wounds to the abdomen and bruises to the face. The family has expressed to the police its thanks for a thorough investigation into a particularly difficult case—a case that is far from closed.
The hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Yeovil, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith in his brief intervention, said that behind these circumstances there could lurk matters of grave import. As I said at the outset, the comments made and the questions asked by the hon. Gentlemen deserve and will obtain a proper and considered response. The questions asked go beyond the remit of the Home Office, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow will recognise that time will be involved in obtaining the answers. The hon. Gentlemen have raised matters of import, and I therefore give the undertaking—

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for the seriousness of his reply. As long as there is a considered reply—whatever that reply may be—there will be no pressure from me to hurry the response. I certainly will not urge the Home Office to get on with the job and give a speedy reply. It can be a reply that takes weeks to obtain.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that interjection, which is both helpful and courteous. I take note that the hon. Gentleman has expressed substantial criticism of the reputation of the Home Office. I regret that fact, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the debate and the questions will obtain full consideration and a proper and comprehensive reply in the manner wished by the hon. Gentleman, myself and, no doubt, the House.

BBC (Financing)

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Shortly before 5 o'clock in the morning is perhaps not the happiest time to consider such an important subject. Interest in this subject goes far beyond that of those hon. Members who are able to join in this discussion.
For many years I have been associated with the BBC in both television and radio. I have contributed to and conducted research for a number of current affairs programmes for BBC radio and television. I formed the impression from inside and outside the BBC that many dedicated people work for the corporation, often in appalling conditions. Some parts of the BBC are of great quality. I single out Radio 3 and Radio 4 and parts of BBC 1. There is also unbelievable waste and inefficiency which are characteristics of many public sector institutions.
There is no doubt that this subject is of great interest. It evokes a considerable response from the public, as I am sure hon. Members will have found from their postbags over the past few weeks and will find in the weeks to come. It also encourages visits by constituents to Members' surgeries.
A number of opinion polls have been published. They show that there is considerable hostility to the BBC's proposal for a 41 per cent. increase in the licence fee. That increase is apparently supported by 13 per cent. only of the sample interviewed by NOP on behalf of D'Arcy-Macmanus and Masius, and by 14 per cent. only of the sample interviewed by MORI on behalf of The Sunday Times. An increase from £46 to £65 is a whopping increase for anyone who is living on a restricted budget due to a fixed income.
I am interested also in the morality of the matter. With the development of cable television, the BBC will have a declining minority of listeners and viewers. There are bound to be questions about the legitimacy of the base for a compulsory tax, such as the BBC licence fee.
Many commentators and hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the regressive nature of the BBC licence as a form of taxation. That is hardly surprising. Television sets are possessed by many pensioners, single parent families and others who find it difficult to find the resources to pay a large licence fee, even with the various methods of payment that have been introduced in recent years. Rich people, who have more than one television set, pay the same licence fee as others with one. To that extent, this tax falls harshly upon those groups in our society which can least afford it.
The BBC's problem is that revenues are no longer buoyant. They were buoyant primarily because the number of television sets was increasing. The increase is now declining. The number of people owning colour television pushed up the revenues because of the difference between the cost of a black and white and a colour licence.
Colour television licences exceed 80 per cent. of the total number of licences. The number of colour television licences is not expected to increase at anything like the rate of recent years. That is hardly surprising. The estimates at the moment are for an increase of 3 per cent. per year.
Futhermore, the BBC, in its admirably documented submission in support of its proposal, has drawn attention to the spiralling cost of providing television services. I am

not happy to accept that it is necessary that all the costs should spiral in the way that they do. That is a matter to which I shall return.
I want to discuss whether we need to increase the licence fee at all. The commonest solution to be put forward by commentators over the past few weeks is the introduction of some advertising. Whether it should be partial for Radio 1 and Radio 2, or perhaps for BBC 1, or across the entire range of BBC services, is a matter that will no doubt arouse great debate. I find the BBC's attitude to this proposition puzzling. It claims to he noncommercial and it deprecates advertising. Indeed, that has been repeated recently by the new chairman of the BBC. He has said that he does not consider advertising to be appropriate. Yet there has been a grudging acceptance of the value of sponsorship, or at any rate the necessity of sponsorship for sport and some areas of the arts. In appropriate programmes, the BBC will frequently interview authors about books which they have recently published. In a sense, that is a form of advertising of the product.
There are also the BBC's own plugs. It is scarcely possible to listen to the radio or watch television without hearing various forms of plugs almost as frequently as on the independent channels. The BBC plugs only its own programmes or its own products, of which there is quite a wide range. Martin Anderson, an economist, has written:
BBC Enterprises has branches dealing with TV Programme Sales, Film and Videotape Library Sales, Education and Training Sales and Hire, Video Exhibitions, Merchandising, Records and Tapes, Music Publishing, Technical Facilities, as well as Production, Technical and Service Depts.
With such a long list of branches, it can hardly be said that the BBC is virginly pure of any commercial involvement.
What are the possibilities? The possibility that seems to meet with the broadest degree of support is the introduction of advertising to Radio 1 and Radio 2, which are comparable with commercial radio stations. They play light or pop music most of the time. The primary purpose of BBC 2 is to provide programmes of an educational nature. However, BBC 1 concentrates more on entertainment, so that is another area where advertising could be considered.
What has been the reaction of the public to the idea of advertising? I return to the NOP survey. Apparently 77 per cent. want the licence fee to be pegged, even if that means advertising. According to MORI, the figure is 69 per cent. I would not draw too much of a conclusion from the difference between the two percentages. According to NOP, 56 per cent. think that the programmes would not suffer as a result. That must be set against the 42 per cent. who think that the programmes are not any good anyway.
What do the ITV companies think? We have not heard from them all, but we have heard from Granada through a number of different letters to The Guardian. It seems that it thinks it a bad idea. That is hardly surprising. After all, it would have to compete for the same advertisng revenue and, therefore, it would see the idea as a threat. It would mean that it, too, would have to tackle some of the restrictive practices that riddle the media — both televison and Fleet street.
The BBC objects to the principle of advertising because it says that it would lead eventually to the rejigging of schedules and the sales department would dominate. It claims that the rating schedules would become the most


important factor. So the BBC portrays itself as highminded. I find that rather unconvincing. It should be remembered that at the end of 1983, when the BBC's share of the market had fallen to 45 per cent., it rescheduled "The Thorn Birds" in place of "Panorama" and, curiously enough, its rating increased to 49 per cent. Therefore, the BBC is not above rejigging its ratings if it thinks that there is something in it for it.
One must address the question of advertising in principle. I personally believe that advertising has much merit. In order to increase advertising revenue, television and radio must meet audience demand, and surely that should be an objective of television and radio companies. Of course, that argument would not commend itself to the eletists, but it would commend itself to the general public.
It is also said that quality would suffer. That is a difficult argument to follow, because more revenue would come into television and could be devoted to greater quality as well as to a greater range of programmes. It is instructive to note that, even with the present system, the ITV companies are capable of making some extremely good quality programmes, and at the recent Emmy awards, Britain had a clean sweep in the section for non-United States competitors. All five of those prizes went to independent television companies.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Almost as an aside and a throwaway line, the hon. Gentleman said that if there were to be advertising on BBC, more revenue would come into television. That is not the estimate of all the practitioners in advertising or of the television or radio companies. Where will that increased revenue come from? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the cake will be enlarged, or is he suggesting that the additional revenue coming to the BBC under these proposals will come from commercial local radio and perhaps local newspapers? If so, what is the consequence for the latter?

Mr. Jones: I shall return to that matter later. The simple answer is that I believe that the cake will grow, and that that view is shared by practitioners in advertising.
Public opinion is important. It is the public's money, and they should be the first to be considered. The MORI poll in March 1984 showed that 44 per cent. thought that the BBC presented either not very good value for money or poor value for money, so clearly that worried them. That might have concerned simply price, with the public feeling that if the television licence fee had been lower, the standard would have been acceptable. However, apparently that is not so, because 42 per cent. were dissatisfied with quality as opposed to 53 per cent. who were satisfied. The same question was asked about ITV programmes. In their case, only 31 per cent. were dissatisfied, whereas 64 per cent. were satisfied. That is a reflection of the increasing quality of ITV productions not just in news and current affairs, where they are incomparably good, but in documentaries, light entertainment, plays, and so on.
The idea of advertising must have its supporters as well as its opponents. I should like to mention them at length. It has been welcomed by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. Its media policy group welcomed the Saatchi and Saatchi Compton report calling for advertising. The group stated:

It is our view that allowing advertising to fund the BBC increasingly will give the corporation the resources to develop its services more fully without the need for the public to bear the burden.
That is part of the reply to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
The idea also commended itself recently to Opposition members. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw, (Mr. Ashton) has shown a particular interest in it, and, much to my amazement, so has the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), although not so recently. Michael Tracey, writing in "Public Money", in September said:
In 1966 the then Postmaster General, Tony Benn, as the Minister responsible for broadcasting, actually considered forcing the BBC to take advertising. Such an idea was easily defeated by BBC lobbying, appalled civil servants — one, legend has it, threatened to take the issue to the Queen if Benn did not desist".
Of course, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield may have changed his mind about this as much as he has about many other matters, but it is interesting to note that he favoured advertising at that time.
Many individual advertising agencies welcome the idea of increased opportunities. Rodney Harris, media director of D'Arcy MacManus and Masius, has said:
Last year, advertisers were having to pay nearly twice as much in real terms for television airtime as they did in 1970".
That being so, it is scarcely surprising that advertisers should view this as a means of keeping down their costs as well as bringing extra revenue into the industry.
In any real world, the BBC itself should welcome the idea because the gap between BBC and ITV resources continues to widen and will clearly lead to a challenge in the quality of programmes in due course.
Advertising is only part of the answer. For a great part of the revenue necessary there is still the choice between greater efficiency and doing something about the scale of the operations. I believe that there is tremendous waste and major opportunities for cost cutting within the present service. Many who work at the BBC admit that. Stuart Young, the new chairman, in an interview published in The Times recently, conceded:
I think that within the industry there are certain manning practices which have developed that are less than desirable. But what I do know for a fact is that any manning difficulties that there are within the BBC are nothing as compared to the manning difficulties in commercial television.
I do not suggest that just because ITV is overmanned that means that the BBC is not. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
In an admirable letter in The Times of 27 November my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) detailed the matter as follows:
If one cuts through the BBC's idealised view of itself, what actually exists is a badly managed, over-staffed and over-extended empire, as much in need of pruning as were British Steel, British Leyland and the NCB. When can viewers expect to see a BBC TV exposure of its inefficient work practices and of the large investment in computer technology lying idle in newsrooms because of lack of will to manage resources lest any interest group might be upset?
I have had experience of that myself when working for the BBC. One notorious practice of the BBC is that, when it wants information which may not necessarily be urgent, instead of asking one to post it, a taxi is sent to collect it. That is a shocking waste of public resources. It is also well known that on outside locations many BBC staff enjoy a standard of food and hotel accommodation greatly exceeding that which should apply when public money is involved.
Many people who work in the BBC would probably concede that there is quite a lot of waste. I have heard it said by many who work further down the tree that the BBC is one of those organisations in which there are whole tribes of chiefs rather than Indians. Certainly my personal observation has been that the people at the sharp end often have to operate in extremely poor conditions and with limited equipment, while the top people have far more support staff than one would recognise as necessary.
There is also the question of scale. The BBC has gone into a number of new areas in recent years. Local radio, for example, is costing it about £20 million per year. That is about 3 per cent. of the total and it is increasing. I do not believe that the BBC needs to be in local radio at all. Its service duplicates that of the commercial stations. It is also often inferior in quality to the commercial stations which are famed for their extremely high technical standards.
It would be far better if the public had a choice, and if there were competition. The BBC should sell off its local radio services to the private sector. In that context, I pay tribute to the Chiltern radio station — an independent radio station serving my constituency—which is widely listened to. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) nods agreement. The station serves his area, too. It is of very fine quality. If there were two such stations in our area, with no drain on public money, that would be a great amenity for the people of our part of the Chilterns. The proposed BBC radio station will be a drain on the taxpayers' resources.
Breakfast television currently costs the BBC £5 million. I wonder why the project was allowed to go ahead in the first place, at a time when the BBC was complaining about the strain on its resources.
I do not believe that the present method of charging through the licensing structure can survive the present technological revolution. It is almost inconceivable that, with cable television around the corner and the duopoly of ITV and BBC dying, the general public will continue to be willing to pay for licences. I look forward to the day when people will pay for individual programmes through some sort of pay cable system.
The argument is about choice. We have a long way to go. People often sneer at television and radio in the United States—at the experience and the choice—but there is far more choice in the United States. In his book, "The Cable Revolution — Britain on the Brink of the Information Society", the editor of The Sunday Times, Mr. Andrew Neil, picks the schedules available in New York and London at 9 pm on 7 June 1982. In New York there was a choice of 25 programmes, compared with three in London— Channel 4 not yet being in operation. The New York programmes varied immensely. New York had a choice between "MASH", a documentary on black ghetto life, another film, a talk show, a documentary about the Kennedy years, baseball, a Spanish show, a variety show, Nureyev, Spanish drama, an opera—"Orpheus"— a public access discussion on international education, a seminar on nuclear arms, a film called "Bye, Bye, Birdie", a drama, another film, gymnastics, the Royal Ballet, folk art, Chinese cooking, the news and the film "The High Country". The citizens of New York clearly had a phenomenal choice. In Miami, too, there are no fewer than 80 stations in operation.
It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North should say that there would be a shortage of

advertising. If Miami — a small town compared with London—can operate 80 such stations, is it not possible for the United Kingdom to operate more than two television stations with advertising? I do not believe that advertising would be in short supply. The amount may grow slowly. That is something that will have to be taken into account when the decision is made—and in March the Home Secretary will have to make a decision.
All these features will have to be included in the package if it is to win my acceptance. I expect that advertising will be introduced in due course. I expect evidence of improved efficiency in the BBC. I expect that the BBC will be encouraged to privatise local radio and breakfast television. Meanwhile, if there is to be an increase in the short term, it will take place without my vote in the House of Commons.

Mr. Francis Maude: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on his introduction of this important subject. I congratulate him on the subject, if not on the timing of the debate. We are not playing to a packed House. My hon. Friend the Minister has had to sir through the previous debate as well, and I congratulate him on looking remarkably perky.
This is an important debate because of its timing in regard to the proposed increase in the BBC licence fee and because, since the beginning of broadcasting, there has been a liberal consensus that we have to maintain the purity and virginity of the public service broadcasting ethic. Any mention of advertising in connection with the BBC somehow signals the advance of the Visigoths across Europe. The fragile structure of civilisation totters and is close to crumbling at the very mention of the word.
The quality of the argument for advertising on the BBC has advanced enormously. The case has become ever more potent and it has been put lucidly and forcefully tonight by my hon. Friend. The argument against has remained static and has been poorly articulated. It does not seem to occur to those who defend the status quo that we require a fairly rigorous analysis of what is going on arid of the justification for maintaining the status quo.
The intellectual arrogance of the argument in favour of the status quo reached its apogee in an editorial in The Observer last Sunday. It had that peculiarly irritating and patronising tone of superiority which is so redolent of the liberal consensus. It said:
It is simply not the case that the sharing of advertising between ITV and BBC would leave the underlying geology of British broadcasting unaffected. It would wreck it".
I accept that as a statement of opinion. It can be held genuinely and sincerely. However, such an assertion must be backed up with some form of analysis and justification. What do we have? The editorial continued:
if Mrs. Thatcher is not prepared to accept that warning from the BBC … then perhaps she should pay heed to the equally serious forebodings expressed by those in the free enterprise sector of the industry.
The support of the BBC is prayed in aid, as is the support of the independent television companies. The same vein of rigorous analysis continues:
She might also reflect on the fact that the last politician to bring forward a proposal almost identical to her own was Mr. Tony Benn: he, too, professed not to want to swamp the airwaves with advertising — he simply, until defeated in a Labour Cabinet, proclaimed his desire to see the principle established.


It is a curious reflection for The Observer, whose distaste for the adversarial nature of politics is well known, to assume that because one part of the Labour party has at some stage supported this issue it ought to be axiomatic that the Government oppose it. The editorial claims to set out the case against advertising in the BBC and yet t is devoid of any justification, analysis or reasoned support for that case. It continues;
The truth is that—perhaps more by luck than foresight—Britain happens to have almost the ideal 'mix' in at least one sector of its communications industry: on the one side, a lately somewhat complacent public service corporation and, on the other, a highly competitive free enterprise system.
Again, a bald assertion of opinion. The argument just does not measure up to what the public perceive to be the case. The BBC lost its innocence in regard to commercialism a long time ago. Every year, come the run-up to Christmas, we have the unedifying spectacle of the BBC announcing its Christmas line-up with all of the razzmatazz that is attached to commercialism. It competes directly with the ITV companies. It competes, but without the sort of financial discipline that accompanies proper competition in a free market. At the end of the day, the BBC cannot go bankrupt, because it comes back to the Home Office for another subvention — another increase in the compulsory levy on everyone who owns a television set. Similarly, the ITV companies do not operate—as The Observer maintains — within a highly competitive framework. They are a private monopoly.
I am not one of those who maintain that the BBC is terribly wasteful and extravagant, without any financial discipline. I accept that there have been attempts to impose some sort of financial discipline in the BBC. I also accept the argument of those who say, "If you want to see overmanning, bad labour practices and wastefulness, don't look at the BBC but at the independent television companies." That is absolutely right. The wastefulness is far greater there, and the reason is perfectly straightforward. There is no competition and the independent television companies operate a monopoly.
There is far too much advertising chasing far too little advertising time in the independent television sector, with the result that prices are sky-high. The independent companies can charge whatever they like, because advertisers have nowhere else to go to get the same sort of coverage. Consequently, the independent companies operate without any sort of cost discipline. As well as having an effect on the quality of broadcasting, this also has a consequence on the cost of the product advertised. There is a direct public interest in that.
In anything purporting to be a free market there must be advertising. The direct consequence of restricting access to the advertising media is that the cost of the products in the market place is artificially increased. We must address ourselves to the direct public interest in that matter.
I hope that I have shown that within the present broadcasting structure there is a failure of the sort of liberal consensus that has existed for so long. At present there is a compulsory levy on everyone who owns a television set. That operates whether or not the owner ever turns on to BB1 or 2. He may watch nothing but ITV programmes, and all the evidence suggests that more people watch ITV programmes than BBC. None the less, everyone must pay the levy. That is nothing short of immoral.
Every three years the BBC comes round with the begging bowl. No doubt an agreement will be made between the Government and the BBC, and the licence fee for the forthcoming three years will be set at somewhere between the present levy and the bid. That is a shabby and unsatisfactory way of regulating a most important part of our public life. We must urgently press for the introduction of advertising into the BBC. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West suggests, it could be done gradually rather than all at once. There could be a phasing out of the licence fee over several years, but at the end of that process I want to see the complete abolition of the licence fee and the funding of public sector broadcasting from advertising.
I know that some people maintain that we could not fund Radio 3 and Radio 4, and possibly BBC 2, from advertising. There may be some justification for that point of view, but to those who say that minority interests cannot be catered for in minority programmes within a commercial framework I would point out that Channel 4, although it was quite rightly criticised at its inception, caters for a large number of minority interests within a commercial framework. To those who say that BBC2 is so sacred and important that it cannot be sullied with commercialism I say that we should try it and see. I believe that it can be properly funded within a commercial framework.
As for Radio 3 and Radio 4, if eventually the conclusion is reached that they cannot be operated within a commercial framework I believe we ought to accept it and fund them out of general taxation. As a proportion of the total BBC budget the cost is tiny. The additional subvention from the Treasury would be minuscule, but it would release anybody who owns a television set from the tyranny of the levy.
The case for keeping advertising out of the BBC has been shown to be wanting in every respect. By its increasing readiness to incorporate advertising for its own products and services within its programmes the BBC has shown that it is not averse to the commercial spirit. It is a gross insult to the dedication and impartiality of those who work in the BBC and to those who acknowledge the need for impartiality and quality in broadcasting to say that to introduce commercialisation is to destroy the public service ethic. The case against advertising has not been made. The case for advertising becomes more potent and cogent as time goes on. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that the question is being most urgently addressed and that preliminary conclusions may be reached before the inevitable increase in the licence fee.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on having secured the debate and having given us the opportunity to raise this important matter.
If one is discussing the funding of any television network there are a number of options: first to fund it from taxation, secondly to fund it from advertising, and thirdly to look towards some kind of subscription basis of funding, by direct charging or otherwise. Whatever the method of funding of the television network, surely in common with all other businesses its future must depend upon being able to respond to the demands of its


customers, in this case its audience. By far the worst possible system is that which is based upon a licence fee. That guarantees stability of income, regardless of the quality of programmes. Advertising, whatever the elitist arguments presented against it might be, has the merit that it is an improvement on the present system of responding to customer demand.
My principal criticism of the licensing system is that it allows no relationship whatever to occur between consumption and the price charged or between quality and the demands of the consumer. The consumer is left with no way of expressing a preference. The only way is to write to "Points of View", but that is hardly the type of preference that I would expect hon. Members of my party to regard as legitimate.
Another more serious objection — although it is a feature of our system of government that we have been able to avoid—is what is affectionately known in the trade as the Carrickmore syndrome. I was unaware of it until I undertook research when preparing for the debate. It refers to the incident in 1979 when the BBC filmed an IRA show of strength in the village of Carrickmore. The Government quite rightly protested about this excess. It happened to be an incident which occurred in the middle of the discussions on the licence fee. The BBC dropped the film and it was suggested that it did so because it was worried about the licence fee increase. Scurrilous as that suggestion might have been, it is worrying to have a broadcasting system that is open to the criticism that it depends on the good will of the Government of the day to secure its funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said that the BBC was no innocent virgin in advertising and commercialism. I have had a number of visits from constituents who have expressed their strong objection to the proposed increase in licence fees. I have also had visits from people who are opposed to advertising, but they did not object for the same reasons as some of the high-flown advocates on the other side of this argument. They complained that advertising would interrupt the programmes. My perception is that programmes are constantly interrupted by commercial breaks for the BBC's own products and programmes.
Indeed, I suggest that the commercial break is useful, because it gives one—or one's wife—the opportunity to put the kettle on.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That was a very sexist remark.

Mr. Forsyth: I apologise to the hon. Member. It was meant to be descriptive rather than sexist.
The fact that we see sponsorship at sporting events, such as football matches, shows that the rot has already set in. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West referred to the number of products that the BBC markets. It is suggested that quality would suffer if advertising were introduced, but I believe that some programmes would benefit from the introduction of advertising and would certainly not be disrupted by it. For example, it would be useful to have advertisements between horse races. I cannot see that that would destroy the fabric or the creativity of programmes or justify any of the other bogus arguments that are put forward.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is that not particularly the case with Radio 1 and Radio 2? The jingles would be part of

the atmosphere, as they are on commercial radio. The atmosphere is part of the reason why so many young people listen to commercial radio.

Mr. Forsyth: That was an extremely helpful intervention. I do not often listen to Radio 1 or Radio 2. I find the commercial stations much better.
We should be suspicious of the BBC's self-indulgent, self-congratulatory attitude. My hon. Friends have been much kinder to the BBC than I shall be. The argument that the corporation is the pinnacle of broadcasting has yet to be proved. These matters are subjective, but it seems to me that on news coverage, current affairs and investigative reporting, ITV takes the BBC by storm and is much more effective. If hon. Members choose something a little closer to home, I believe that the ITV coverage of general elections has consistently been better than that of the BBC. The ITV coverage of the recent American elections was masterful. On the BBC there was only a cosy anti-Reagan fireside chat, with little information being provided for those of us who were looking for the high ground that the BBC claims to occupy.
The argument that advertising would debase the quality of programmes hardly stands up when one switches on and sees shows of the calibre of "Blankety Blank" and other quiz programmes broadcast by the BBC. Mention has been made of the rejigging of programmes around "The Thornbirds". I seem to recall that the BBC spent a very considerable sum on securing that, I believe Australian, soap opera. Again, it would not fit the description of the high ground.
I would not describe Channel 4's broadcasting as broadcasting of the lowest possible denominator, yet advertising obviously plays its part there. I may have missed the point because I do not watch it frequently, but I would not describe breakfast television as particularly elevating. The Fleet street newspapers compete for advertising, yet they still seem capable of producing quality newspapers. Judging by the editorials, some of them are improving before our very eyes.
The fact is that the argument about quality is purely an elitist argument to prop up the view that there are one or two people in the BBC who know what a quality programme is, and what is best for the viewing public. They are entitled to their opinions, but hon. Members should look at their performance records. They show that they are extremely sensitive to audience ratings. By their own actions, they admit that the best test of effective broadcasting and quality is the extent of high ratings. One of the unfortunate aspects of the argument is that the high ratings are considered a criticism and something that should be despised. On the contrary, they should be sought after, because they show that there are satisfied customers.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) asked whether there would be enough advertising. I notice that the director-general of the BBC was recently quoted as saying that local newspapers would suffer as a result of introducing advertising into the BBC. That was a new and very welcome demonstration of concern for local papers by the BBC. I am sure that we all appreciate that. But I seem to recall that the same argument was used by local newspapers against commercial television and radio in the early days. It was then argued that if there was advertising on radio and television, it would take away business from the newspapers, and would mean the end of civilisation as we know it.
We know that that was a totally bogus argument. Far from taking away advertising, the increase in commercial advertising in broadcasting in turn increased demand for advertising in the local press, as it resulted in tie-up advertising and marketing. The principal source of the argument about the volume of advertising has been the independent television producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) eloquently described how the interests coincided. People are desperately keen to preserve the monopoly. I have always been on the fringes of advertising, but those whom I know in that world very much resent that monopoly. It is used to say, "Take it or leave it. This is the price and this is the slot." Incidentally, some of the most expensive advertising on ITV is in the slots that block some of the best and most prestigious programmes on BBC. Anyone who has been interviewed at home by ITV must have been astonished by the number of cars and the people who emerge from them with clipboards but, who appear to have no particular function.
Wages in the independent television companies have consistently gone up at an astonishing rate—about 35 per cent. above the BBC rate. We are told that that is why the BBC finds it difficult to compete, that it trains all the people and that they then go off to ITV. Therefore, it is said, it needs more money to attract them back. It is a self-fulfilling spiral which is going downwards and which can only be broken by competition. It is a system that has allowed restrictive practices to grow and that has been to the detriment of both commercial and public broadcasting.
The argument about whether there is enough advertising available in the market is ridiculous when it is seen in the context of the fact that a mere 15 minutes a day for the BBC would bring in £50 million a year. We are not talking about wall to wall advertising from the start of broadcasting to the finish.
One or two anomalies exist within the licensing system which are unfair. It is impossible to defend the fact that a pensioner, regardless of income, will have to pay the proposed £65 licence fee. It becomes even harder to defend when it is recognised that if that pensioner lives in a sheltered housing scheme he would have to pay only £5 a year, provided the sheltered housing scheme is in the public sector. If the pensioner lived in one of the splendid examples of a private sheltered housing scheme put up around the country, he and every other pensioner in that scheme would have to pay the full licence. That cannot be fair.
The licensing system is questionable when one looks at the costs of collection. I understand that the cost of collecting is about 6 per cent., which is high when compared with, say, income tax, at 2 per cent.
Having put the case for advertising, let me mention the possibility of a subscription scheme, because I do not think that that has come into the debate, either outside or inside the House. The licence started as a subscription scheme. It was only as part of the wheeling and dealing done by the Government of the day in the days when it was necessary to give something in return for taking away a monopoly — a curious notion — when the BBC's monopoly on television broadcasting was removed to allow the ITV companies to come into existence, that the

subscription system was changed to a licensing system, or, in effect, a poll tax on people with sets. It was part of the quid pro quo.
There is nothing in the world to prevent the BBC from allowing existing licences to expire and in 12 months we could scramble the signal. Having been so hard on the BBC, I do not want to imply that I am trying to ensure that nobody is capable of receiving its programmes any more. Newsagents and normal retail outlets could market a small device to put between the aerial socket and the television to unscramble the signal, for which a monthly rental or flat charge is paid. To deal with piracy, and so on, the scrambling could be altered and a new device could be obtained every two or three months.
That would have the happy advantage of preventing the BBC from padding out the summer with those repeats of repeats of repeats which no one wants to watch, because presumably no one would go along to their newsagent and buy the delightful device to unscramble the programmes. The BBC would have an incentive to ensure that it kept its subscribers.
I know that arguments against that will be advanced. I know that people will say it would be unfair, that the BBC would have to think about its customers, market itself, and be responsible to consumer demand. I know that those arguments will be advanced against the proposal, but they are precisely the arguments that I would advance in favour of it.
There is a further anomaly. I confess that I have not done my homework as well as I should have liked. I understand from a constituent who wrote to me this week that at every sitting of a court in my constituency there are about a dozen cases of people who have forgotten to buy television licences and have been caught by detector vans. The normal procedure is to fine them about £5 for each month for which the payment is outstanding, and to make them pay the back-duty on the fee. I understand that the latter payment goes to the court, not to the BBC, which is in contrast with the system that operates for vehicle licence dodging. As a result, the BBC is losing considerable amounts of revenue. As a gesture to its empty coffers, I suggest that that should be examined, if the present licence system, which I do not support, is to continue.
The debate this morning and the recent debate in the press and elsewhere provides us with an opportunity. Public opinion is on the side of those who think that the licensing system has been tested to destruction. There is a serious problem in the BBC, which relates to its decreasing cost-effectiveness. Since 1971 its income has romped well ahead of inflation. Licences have increased in number from 16 million to 18.5 million. Colour licences, which are about three times the price of black and white licences, have increased from 4 per cent. to 80 per cent. of licences. The BBC has, therefore, had an enormous increase in revenue.
Now the total number of licences is in decline. We have had five increases in the seven years between 1975 and 1981, compared with seven in the previous 50 years. The BBC told the Annan committee that with 8 per cent. inflation it would need a 25 per cent. increase in the licence fee every three years. This year with 5 per cent. inflation, it wants a 30 per cent. increase—that is three years after a 35 per cent. increase.
The time has come to think about radical action in terms of commercialising the BBC. Even in the present political


crisis it is astonishing to find senior figures in the BBC saying, "Ah well, the problem is all those people with car radios. We need a car radio tax. It would be simple. We would just put a little green band on the tax disc of the motor cars of those who had paid their car radio fee. It is tremendous value because there are millions of car radios and the cost would be only ½p a week. People should be made to contribute towards that." Even now they are pumping the same old argument, which no longer has credibility. Auntie is in desperate need of surgery.
BBC 1, BBC 2 and breakfast TV could be hived off as a separate company. The board of governors of the BBC should be turned into a sort of IBA. It should ensure that matters go right, but it should not be involved commercially. That entity could then be funded entirely by advertising without any difficulty. I accept that there is a problem about getting all the revenue from advertising for BBC 2. However, a combination of subsidy from BBC 1 and breakfast TV — it is questionable whether breakfast TV is a viable proposition—sponsorship and subscription could fund BBC 2.
There may also be merit in hiving off BBC Television News as a separate entity that could sell its product in the way that Independent Radio News does for the commercial radio stations. My hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, West and for Warwickshire, North made a convincing case for advertising on Radio 1 and Radio 2. I believe that they should he sold off lock, stock and barrel, because they are ideally placed to be operated as private concerns. There is no possible case for their being operated by the state.
I recognise the special position of Radio 3 and Radio 4, but their funding could easily be organised through a combination of sponsorship and subscription on the lines of the public broadcasting service in the United States. As for BBC local radio, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that in all the research that I have carried out, and in all the thinking I have done, I cannot find a single argument for that service being run by the BBC. It should be privatised, preferably through management buy-outs, or simply by the highest bidder taking all.
If I may be allowed a regional reference, BBC Scotland, BBC Wales and BBC Ulster could be funded from advertising, and private capital could be introduced. There is no reason why the board of governors of the BBC should not still ensure the quality of programmes.
Perhaps I may be allowed one reactionary proposal in my suggested programme of radical reform. It would be a grave mistake to alter the basis of the BBC external services. The case for retaining it under the control of the BBC., and funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is overwhelming. Indeed, that service—the one for which there is a strong case for public broadcasting —is consistently damaged as a result of our exercises to restrain public expenditure. There is a strong case for giving that service more resources, which could be saved from the other action that I propose.
This is a great opportunity for the Government to sort out, once and for all, the licence problem. It would command the support of the vast majority of British people. Even some Opposition Members argue the case for advertising — something that I did not believe would happen in this Parliament, if ever. That is a recognition that advertising would not sound the death knell of the BBC and that there is an opportunity for change. Some Conservative Members are extremely worried by the

noises being made in Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said some extremely encouraging things about advertising, but we have also heard the echo, "Yes, we will settle the licence fee this time, and we will think about advertising next year." No doubt that echo will disappear into the mists of, "We have an election coming", and all the other arguments that have been used to delay good ideas. The echo will result in reverberations from many hon. Members, who want the Government to seize this opportunity.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on his success in the ballot, and on enabling several hon. Members to articulate the worries of many members of the public. It is significant that all those who have spoken in the debate so far are new Members of Parliament. They represent the new thinking among the public on this issue.
I am concerned about this matter for four reasons. First, I believe that we should respond to public demand on this issue. As far as possible, Members of Parliament should reflect the views of their constituents, and there is no doubt from the excellent statistics and polls that the public want change in this sector.
Secondly, I am naturally opposed to compulsory levies in principle, and at the moment we have a compulsory levy on anyone who has a television set in his home.
Thirdly, I want to bring more competition into advertising. At the moment, advertising is a monopoly of the independent sector, and that is leading to higher costs than would be the case if there were more competition.
Fourthly, I am concerned about the BBC licence fee being increased to anything like the level that it requests in its application. Figures such as 0·5 per cent. on the retail price index have been quoted, and that would lead to about £150 million extra public expenditure, with the knock-on effect on benefits, which are tied to the RPI.
I do not agree with the three-year agreement proposal. We should be looking for a one-year agreement. In the meantime, we should be discussing alternative funding and a long-term solution that will eliminate the need for a licence fee.
Whenever one challenges public sector sacred cows, there are always people who complain and predict doom and gloom. There was an interesting article in The Times by Bernard Levin not long ago, in which he told those of us who are too young to remember what happened in the 1950s in the debate over the creation of an independent television network. He said:
As the debate got under way, such demotic figures as Lord Waverley, Lord Halifax, Lord Brand and Lady Violet Bonham-Carter denounced the proposal as certain to corrupt the popular taste, of which they had always, of course, been such conspicuous guardians. Lord Hailsham envisaged 'Caliban emerging from his slimy cavern'; Lord Esher foresaw the nation plunged 'into a planned and premediated orgy of vulgarity': Lord Mathers shrank from the horror of young people seeing on their screens such foul slogans as 'Beer is Best'; Mr. Scholefield Allan, MP, described the never-forgotten revulsion he had experienced when he had heard, on Radio Luxembourg, an advertisement immediately preceding a Beethoven symphony; Herbert Morrison threatened that a future Labour government might abolish ITV altogether; Beverley Baxter shuddered at the thought that an advertisement might feature a man extolling a deodorant.
Advertising-funded television arrived, and the skies did not fall.


The public realise that that is the reality. We have been experiencing a self-interested lobby by the BBC, which is trying to prevent Members of Parliament from taking cognisance of what people think.
The effect of the advertising monopoly has already been referred to by a number of my hon. Friends. The restrictive practices and high wage rates that exist in the television world are renowned. I shall refer to an article that Mr. Max Hastings wrote in the Standard on 25 October 1984. He was talking about the dispute that brought Thames Television to a halt for several consecutive days. He spoke of the "absurdly high" salaries in ITV and the "absurdly unrealistic" work practices, which were matched only in the press industry. The difference between Fleet street and the BBC is that one does not have to pay a compulsory amount every day for a newpaper. Many people choose not to buy a newspaper, but those who have a television set are compelled to pay a licence fee, even if they do not wish to watch BBC. Mr. Hastings said that ITV has really had a licence to print money when so much revenue was coming that nothing seemed to matter but continuing to churn out programmes at any cost. He also said:
Once created, the system became enshrined in tradition. In the past few years, all producers of television have become deeply concerned by cost escalations, running far ahead on inflation. Yet none has made significant progress in persuading its employees to adopt more realistic practices.
With ITV film cameramen making around £40,000 a year, some electricians even more than this, film editors the right side of £20,000, relatively unskilled sound and camera assistants closer to £30,000, there is room for everybody on the gravy train.
The impact on film-making caused by overtime agreements is soul-destroying. Once the basic day has been worked, every hour thereafter the scale of technicians' earnings multiply until they reach a level four or five times basic rates.
There are 'pocket money' agreements for crews working abroad even when all their expenses are being paid, meal-break deals and rest-period arrangements of fantastic complexity. Only a handful of technicians are willing to be flexible about interpreting their rights.
Mr. Hastings went on to say:
The irony is that BBC, with its resolute determination to yield nothing to the commercial principle, is sinking into ever-deeper financial problems, which in turn make for worse programmes, which in turn make for lower ratings.
ITV, wallowing in advertising revenue, is riding so high in the ratings that any contractors are desperate to see an improvement in the BBC's fortunes, before the Government steps in to cream off yet more of commercial TV's profits.
Last weekend, we were given our first frontal nude on that most loathsomely exploitative of all soap operas, Tenko. Do we call this an opening shot in the BBC's great ratings fight-back?
If the restrictive practices, overmanning and high wages were occurring solely in the independent television companies, perhaps that would be of relatively little concern compared with what is happening now. Unfortunately, these same practices are occurring in the BBC. Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, writing in The Times on 6 October, said that, contrary to some opinions, the BBC has even more staffing than the independent sector. He then said:
The BBC has a staff of some 29,000. Commercial broadcasting with a comparable television output and a radio network, employs fewer than 20,000. The BBC, a bureaucracy not concerned with maximising profits, probably employs a staff about one third more than if it were a commercial organisation.
Because there is an advertising monopoly, the independent channels are able to make extra profits by pushing up the advertising rates far ahead of the rate of

inflation. Their work force then demands an extra share of those profits, and as a result, the BBC finds that it has to pay staff extra to compete. It is a vicious circle in which the consumer comes out worst and the monopoly unions operate to good effect for their members who are lucky enough to work in those industries.
Many of the people who oppose advertising on the BBC suggest that there would need to be a massive amount of advertising to have an impact. One of the points coming through in this welcome debate is that a relatively modest amount of advertising would suffice. Advertising for one minute 20 seconds in an hour would obviate the need to increase the fee. Advertising for only one minute 20 seconds in an hour would not mean that programmes have to be interrupted by advertisements. Advertisements could be placed between programmes. I believe that there would be wide public acceptance of a modest amount of advertising, even if, to start with, there was advertising only on BBC 1. That would leave BBC 2 to operate more like the public broadcasting service that operates in the United States.
I am worried about the negotiations for a three-year licence agreement. It means that any agreed licence fee will be that much higher than if it were a one-year agreement. I have already illustrated the adverse effect that that would have on the Government's policy of keeping down inflation. It also means that the welcome public debate on the subject would close as soon as a new three-year agreement was reached. I implore the Government to recognise that it is now too late to rejig the whole thing before March next year when the licence fee must be agreed. They should say that the BBC will have a one-year agreement only and that the extra time will be used for increased public debate, which I hope will result in a Bill being brought before the House and lead to the complete phasing out of the BBC television licence fee.
We have all heard about the effect of the licence fee on pensioners, people on fixed incomes, and so on. A counter-argument is that, because the licence fee would be reflected in the retail price index, pensioners would receive extra on their pensions each week from which they would be expected to meet the additional cost of the licence. In the real world it will not be like that. When it comes to paying the increased fee, pensioners will ask how they can pay for it out of their limited incomes. I sympathise with pensioners who live on fixed incomes and who are worried about this matter.
We should give all pensioner households a 5p licence, or do away with the licence. At the moment we fall between two stools. We say that the pensioner who lives in council-run sheltered accommodation is entitled to a 5p licence, whereas the pensioner who lives in a rented flat on his or her own, who probably has costs additional to those of the first one I mentioned, must pay the full licence fee.
There is one anomaly after another. Everything the Government do to try to resolve the matter leads to further anomalies, because the impact on the licence fee for everyone else if every pensioner could have a 5p licence would be so great that people would take to the streets to protest.
That is why my hon. Friends and most members of the public believe that we should eliminate the licence fee. We should not be content with half measures which lead to the problems we have had with dog licences, where the cost of collecting the fee becomes progressively a higher


proportion of the revenue raised and people ask whether it is worth collecting. We should have a programme to phase out the licence fee.
If we could go to the people and say that in three, four or five years the licence fee would be eliminated, we would effectively be giving £1 per week extra to almost every householder to spend as he wished. That would be in accordance with Conservative philosophy and, I hope, with Government policy.
We know how people have been agonising recently about the £1 per week reduction in the increase in heating allowance. The Labour party spokesman on this issue is not prepared to say that phasing out the licence fee will give back £1 a week to householders.
In another article in The Spectator, Mr. Paul Johnson wrote about the "stone age BBC". He said:
At present the BBC's obstinacy in accepting advertisements has no more foundation in reason and economics than Arthur Scargill's refusal to accept pit closures.
I agree with that. It is no doubt because the Labour party agrees with him that it is embracing the policy of repealing any proposals to introduce advertising into the BBC in the same supine way as it has been supporting Mr. Arthur Scargill.
I hope that, as a result of the debate, there will be a further debate before the BBC's licence fee increase application is approved. I hope, too, that the Government will introduce proposals for a one-year increase and a wide-scale public debate that will lead to the phasing out of the licence fee for ever.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on his initiative in bringing the debate before the House. My hon. Friend has demonstrated his acute sensitivity to popular concern. The fact that we are debating a matter of great concern to the public is borne out by press comment, public opinion surveys and letters received by many of my colleagues and me about the BBC, its financing and the proposed increases in licence fees.
The debate is extremely relevant and timely, because the BBC is mounting a campaign in support of its desire for a large increase in the licence fee. It is appropriate that we should have an early opportunity to discuss and consider the implications of the proposed increase before a decision is reached. The fact that the debate has been allowed to continue for three hours reflects the concern that is felt among hon. Members about the issue and their desire to express themselves and debate the principles involved.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his contribution to the debate, the persuasiveness of his arguments and the general thrust of his contentions, which in general I strongly endorse. I endorse his remarks on the many good features of the BBC, its employees and its services. I have always found myself most courteously, fairly and fully treated by the BBC, and any criticism that I make of the system and its financing does not stem from a personal axe that I might wish to grind.
On the other hand, I must observe that the political nexus that the present financing system creates is one that runs to the detriment of both the BBC and Members of Parliament. The BBC rightly resents having to come almost on bended knee for increases in its revenue. I am

sure that it would prefer a system where it was free of any possible political colouring and judgment. At the same time, I have heard colleagues say in private that they might not wish to be heard to be objecting too strongly to the BBC's request for a licence fee increase for fear that that might jeopardise their chances of being represented by the corporation. The political nexus bites both ways and I am sure that any means that was found to break free of it would be welcomed.
There is a strongly principled argument against any increase in the licence fee. I think especially of those of my constituents—a high proportion of them—who are unemployed, elderly or on low incomes. The ability to watch television is one of the few luxuries that they are able to afford. It might even be described as a necessity for those who have time on their hands and little to occupy it with. They have to pay for this "luxury" what is already a high rent when it is set against their income band.
The BBC is pressing a case to increase the licence fee to £65 a year, an increase of £19, or about 41 per cent. That would be an extremely large increase bearing in mind the present rate of inflation and increases in costs elsewhere. It is equivalent to a back-door tax increase of over 40p a week, which is considerable, and would be rightly condemned were it to fall in any other way.
I regard the proposal for an increase in the licence fee as quite unacceptable. After all, it is already a high enough hurdle to overcome to change from not having a television to having one. A family has to afford the capital cost of either buying the apparatus or entering into the rental agreement, and then has to pay an already large licence fee. To widen the gap between those who do not have and those who do have a television service would be iniquitous, but to load on to each year that extra payment, making a heavy annual cost, is unacceptable to the many people to whom television is so vital. They have no choice in any case over the cost of the service because, unlike virtually any other product, they cannot turn elsewhere to a competitive product and pay slightly less, perhaps for something of less quality, or even something of higher quality that offers a better bargain.
For the purposes of these arguments, I completely dismiss the suggestion that black and white television is in some sense an alternative to which one can subscribe at a lesser rate, for two reasons. The first is that it bears absolutely no relevance to the provision cost because, from the point of view of the corporation and others, it is exactly the same, whether the receiver happens to be black and white or colour. Secondly, these days, with the importance of the colour aspect of television acknowledged right throughout transmission, for someone to be expected to have to make do with black and white television is to reduce the quality of reception so far that it makes a mockery of the provision of the service.
There is also the aspect of the cost of the collection of the licence, which has been mentioned by many of my hon. Friends in the debate. The detection and collection cost is estimated by the BBC to be around 7 per cent. of the total cost of licence collection in the coming year, which is an enormous percentage if one compares it with alternative forms of taxation or revenue collection. The number of people that the BBC estimates are not at present in possession of a licence but are in possession of the facility to receive transmissions is around 1·5 million, despite the massive increase in detection facilities and warnings issued by advertising and other means which the


BBC is wont to do from time to time. Nevertheless, that large figure is one that I fear will only increase if the licence fee goes up and the larger the increase in the licence fee, predictably, the larger the increase will be in the number of people attempting to get round paying.
The licence fee system has no link to usage of the service. It is not in any sense measured by the amount someone is prepared to listen to the BBC, which benefits from the revenue, as opposed to its independent competitors. I should like to refer now to linkage to use. It is of course a fact that many people might happily watch independent television and not the BBC, and listen to commercial radio, and not the BBC radio, and be quite happy with the provision that they get from the independent sector, yet still have to pay the full amount of the licence fee. They are effectively paying for nothing because they are not benefiting from or receiving the service paid for out of the licence revenue. They are using their equipment to pick up broadcasts that come from, and are funded from, entirely different sources.
There may also be people who do not receive television and do not pay a licence fee but who listen to BBC radio every hour of their waking day and even perhaps when they are asleep, and thus benefit from a service subsidised by the people watching independent television. The licence fee system is completely unmeasured, almost irrelevant, and bears no relation to actual use.
There have been dramatic changes in broadcasting and in communications generally in the past 20 years and there is no doubt that change will continue and indeed accelerate. I just about remember the days when the BBC had a complete monopoly as sole supplier of broadcasting. Some hon. Members' memories may go back even further. I certainly remember the days when one relaxed in the comforting arms of "Auntie" BBC knowing the standard of service that would be provided and regarding it as something sacrosanct that would never change.
Nevertheless, things changed and, although some horror was expressed before independent television and later commercial radio came on the air, both services have proved extremely popular as well as being free to the listener or viewer. Commercial radio was preceded by pirate radio—a sure sign if ever there was one that the market was cramped and unable to deal with the demand that had arisen. Were the fears of poor standards expressed before pirate radio became commercial radio ever justified? I believe that they clearly were not. In any case, what are absolute standards in broadcasting? I find myself questioning the whole concept, but I shall return to that later.
Far from being unpopular, both commercial radio and commercial television were highly popular and much desired. Far from hating the advertisements, as had been suggested, people liked them. According to a recent survey, about 77 per cent. of people actually enjoy watching or listening to the advertisements. As has been pointed out, there are added advantages—including the provision of a break in which one's spouse, of whatever sex, can make tea. The present system is an anachronism. The licence fee is no longer relevant, as it may once have been. Nor is the organisation of the BBC, to which the system is intimately related, ideal for the 1980s, let alone the 1990s and beyond.
Where do we go from here? First, we must look not to the past or the present but to the future and try to anticipate what will happen in broadcasting in general. I think that there will be massive changes. The BBC and broadcasting in general cannot resist direct broadcasting by satellite even if it wished to do so. There will also be competition from cable television. The BBC cannot resist more broadcasting. I have no doubt that in due course domestic viewers here will be able to pick up broadcasts from other countries and, probably via satellite, some of the main United States television channels which, as they broadcast in our language, would be immediately applicable to British audiences.
I do not doubt that before long we shall see the setting up of trans-national television, aiming not just at one country but at a number of countries. Channels such as the music and television network in the United States—which is the television equivalent of Radio 1 or some of the commercial radio stations—will inevitably catch on here sooner or later, and they could have trans-national applications. The BBC could not keep up with all those developments and corner all those markets, even assuming that it would wish to do so, which I do not believe that it would.
The BBC suffers from inherited problems. It suffers from having been an empire and also from the desire—almost the obligation — to participate in all the new applications and developments, because it always has done so in the past. As broadcasting moves into the future, the BBC always seems to want to fight its own Star Wars in the ether. One might more appropriately say that the empire is always wanting to strike back. From the days of VHF and stereo radio to those of the broader remit covering the production of its own films, records, music and video tapes, from the technical support side of television and radio to the second television channel, local radio, DBS and breakfast television — the BBC has shown an interest in everything that one can name, and tried to enter the field. I am sure that if the resources were available—the will would certainly be there—the BBC would like to launch its own satellites to provide for DBS.
A line must be drawn. There are fields that the BBC cannot reasonably enter, and things that it cannot afford to do. Inevitably, its share of the broadcasting market will slip. That cannot be helped. Whatever is done, it will attract less and less of the market. We will therefore find, if we maintain funding solely by licence, that the anomaly becomes greater and greater.
By asking for a huge licence increase this year, the BBC is, happily, opening the door to a complete review of its financial base and its structure. We should seize the opportunity to institute a timely reform of the whole provision of broadcasting by the BBC, in which we consider the broad issues of accountability and efficiency as well as financing.
Much has been done in the past few years with the telephone system. We need to open up broadcasting as widely as possible to competition, enterprise and freedom. By all means let us preserve the best of the BBC. I acknowledge that it has made great contribution to broadcasting and can contribute much in future. However, we should also give the viewers as many alternatives as possible and as fair a means of funding the various possibilities as can be provided.
One possible scenario would be very flexible. There would be a number of options that we could develop after


having tested the water. In the first stage, there would be no increase in the licence fee in the foreseeable future, and permission would be granted to the BBC to bring in limited advertising, perhaps first on Radios 1 and 2 and BBC 1. Those measures could be accompanied by a measure to prevent the BBC developing into new areas and perhaps an encouragement to it to contract out many of its internal activities and limit the growth of ancillary areas.
In the second stage, we could envisage the selling off of Radio 1 and Radio 2, which are perhaps the least credible from the point of view of the BBC's historic purpose and maintenance of standards. Coupled with that, we could extend free licences to the 4·7 million pensioners. The third stage could involve the possible selling off or breaking down into separate organisations of BBC 1 and local radio or of BBC 2, Radio 3 and Radio 4 which, for the foreseeable future, should be kept as they are. They could be subsidised by a reduced licence and perhaps accept some advertising.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My hon. Friend said that he would extend a free licence to the 4 million pensioners. Why has he singled out pensioners — they do not demonstrate need as a category? What about other groups, such as the unemployed?

Mr. Merchant: These proposals have a great element of flexibility. I do not want to narrow the argument by saying that only one sector of the population should benefit from a reduction in licence fees. I chose pensioners because it can be argued that they are most dependent on television. Moreover, they have probably paid more than most in licence fees.
The BBC is a monolithic organisation which has expanded into areas such as breakfast television that could not have been imagined only a few years ago. It is an unaccountable organisation in many ways and it is certainly uncompetitive. Many of its attitudes are paternalistic and anachronistic. It follows what it believes people should see rather than what they demonstrate that they want to see.
We should not kid ourselves on the argument about standards. Standards are a subjective element. The BBC might think that it has the answer, but many others might not agree. Is the BBC that good? It argues that it offers the highest standard of broadcasting in the world, but many disagree. Close examination of the BBC and a comparison with the independent networks show that many independent programmes are of higher quality. The argument that only the BBC offers the highest standards is no longer sustainable. Does the introduction of advertising mean that there will be an automatic reduction in standards? I do not think so. Indeed, I believe that adverts would be welcomed and improve the service.
Paternalism in broadcasting might have been satisfactory in the 1920s, during the war years and perhaps in the austerity that immediately followed the war. The spirit of today's age revolts against paternalism, monopoly, duopoly and everything that goes with them. We should imagine what would happen if Fleet street or the magazine empire were run by a subsidised monopoly that was not open to the market. There would be an outcry. In the interests of plurality, quality and choice, there should be a major review of the licence system, the funding of the BBC and its structure. There should not be an increase in the licence fee but a move towards its decrease. Above all,

this would clearly be in the interests of the consumer and would provide more and better services, as well as greater choice, at a lower cost.
This is a fitting time for a complete review and the institution of radical reforms in broadcasting, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to do all he can to achieve this in the near future.

Mr. Roger King: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) because I did not hear his opening remarks. However, I have listened with great interest to the contributions of others of my hon. Friends, and there is not a lot with which I would disagree. Indeed, I would positively agree with the vast amount of what I have heard, because the general feeling is that, before the BBC is able to obtain any extra increase in its licence fee, at the very least some kind of inquiry into the funding of the organisation should be undertaken before we commit ourselves to what, on the face of it, could be a very large increase.
The BBC seems to suffer from an ever-spiralling increase in running costs. Because of our busy life, many hon. Members are unable to see the programme diet that is dished up day by day and week by week. On the odd occasions when I have been at home on a Saturday or Sunday evening, snuggled up by the fireside with my wife, I have found that the last thing worth watching and indulging in is television. That applies equally to the commercial channels, but time stands still on the BBC on a Saturday evening. It is hard to tell one Saturday from another, because the same programmes are shown each week. There is a quiz show, with the same panel and almost the same contestants. There is also a female police soap opera—each channel has one—and probably an old American film which is being shown for the fourth or fifth time. That is followed by soccer, or that other hideous cult programme — snooker. It may be that such a diet is welcomed by the viewer, but it leads me to question where all the money goes.
Recently there has been a contest between the commercial and state sectors over breakfast television. I am not sure that the financial moguls at the BBC did their costings correctly on whether the corporation could afford breakfast television, but no one asked me, and many others like me, about whether we were prepared to watch it. Having said that, I should add that many hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to enjoy appearing on the programmes. Nevertheless, breakfast television has added a great deal to the cost of the BBC's budget.
That was emphasised only yesterday, when the corporation began attempts to retain one of its prominent female anchor women. A salary of about £80,000 a year has been proposed, but that is not for a five-day working week. It has suggested that that would be for working every other week. That strikes me as money very badly spent.
In the west midlands, the BBC's contribution—Radio WM — is a worthwhile operation and well worth listening to, but whether it fulfils a demand within the area, which is adequately covered by commercial radio, leaves something to be desired. In some of its programmes, both on television and on the radio network,


there are grounds for economies, and probably grounds for withdrawing from a market that is best left to the commercial sector.
As was mentioned earlier, the increase in the television licence fee plays its part in the pension increase, but it never works out quite like that. Those on supplementary long-term pension arrangements have this year suffered a £1 reduction in their pension. The proposed increase of 40p or 45p per week will therefore swallow up about 25 per cent. of their pension increase. It is very hard for some pensioners to accept that.
Some kind of licence fee is needed. I do not believe that it should be phased out completely, to be replaced by commercial advertising. However, we ought to look more closely at the dividing line between black and white and colour television reception. Apart from the receiver, virtually the same equipment is needed. Years ago, when colour television was the in thing, it undoubtedly cost the television contractors a great deal more to provide colour television. However, the extra cost of transmitting colour television has long since been absorbed. Therefore, the justification for two kinds of licence fee no longer obtains.
It is also wrong that elderly people who have difficulty in finding the extra money for a colour television licence should have to put up with black and white television. First, we should consider bringing closer together the cost of black and white and colour television licences. There should at least be a reduced fee for a colour television licence. If we consider also the contribution that advertising might make, we should be moving towards overcoming some of the BBC's financial problems.
Revenue from advertising does not destroy the quality of programmes. There are many good commercial television programmes. There is no evidence to suggest that advertising has reduced the standard or quality of that kind of programme. In the early years of commercial television the contractors indulged in sponsored programmes. They fell by the wayside. They were not part and parcel of the operating requirements of commercial contractors. Some of the magazine programmes, consisting of a half-hour presentation of new products, left a great deal to be desired. But there is no reason why the "Look at Life" and programmes of that kind should not be sponsored by oil or pharmaceutical companies. It would be a very convenient and cheap way for commercial contractors and BBC television to get hold of high quality programmes at a generally low cost. It would result in the provision of cheaper programmes without necessarily having to resort to the other form of advertising—the interruption in the middle of a programme. There are other ways of presenting a commercial partnership between industry and commerce and broadcasting than blatant advertising through subsidised or sponsored programmes.
The challenge that the broadcasting companies face throughout the remainder of the century is daunting. With the advent of satellite and cable television, there will be a much wider choice for viewers. The result will be that they will watch fewer programmes of the contractors who now present them. If viewers are faced with the prospect of paying a great deal more for watching BBC, they will not resent so much having to pay the price for watching a minority channel.
We must grasp the nettle. The licence fee should be reduced and there should be only one category. We should

also allow the BBC to introduce sponsored programmes and ask it to look again at its radio sector and introduce commercial sponsorship, at least on Radio 1 and local radio. Indeed, it should also consider selling local radio stations, perhaps to the existing managements.
The debate is timely and I look forward to some positive action.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for initiating this timely debate. I am sorry that I was not here for his speech, but I know that he examines competition closely and that he likes the smack of firm competition and cost-effectiveness. I look forward to reading his speech in Hansard.
I am also grateful that Mr. Speaker allowed three hours for the debate, which should serve as a curtain-raiser for a full debate in the House on the licence fee and the future financing of the BBC before any firm decision is taken about whether we retain the licence fee for another year. I do not think that we should keep it for more than one year. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is to reply to the debate. I know that he is aware of the pressures of the market and no doubt he will show us some of his wisdom in these matters.
Although this time of the morning is fairly uncongenial and uncomfortable for us, it is an appropriate time to debate the BBC, because the range of BBC broadcasting at this time of the day shows how the corporation seems to be trying to cut its own throat. The highest pressure is put on the listener and viewer by Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4 and breakfast television. They all compete fiercely for the captive audiences in British households and among people driving to work. There is further competition from the BBC's local radio stations. In some areas, two such stations overlap. That is an excessive coverage by the BBC.
We are moving into an era of new developments in broadcasting. The BBC has stated adamantly that it wants 50 per cent. of direct broadcasting by satellite. I believe that it would be acceptable for the BBC to have one third of DBS, with one third going to independent broadcasters and the remaining one third going to the commercial world in general. Nevertheless the BBC wishes to grab an excessive slice of the action there.
Then we have cable television—the new development for which the House legislated during the last Session. Again, that will put heavy pressure on the broadcasting world. Finally, there is the argument now for much more community local radio, with low-powered transmitters spread over a wide area of the country. The community is asking for true local stations, and that will once again increase the amount of broadcasting in Britain.
Those great developments are going on, and so it is wholly appropriate that we should now look afresh at where the BBC stands within the broadcasting world. How is the BBC to be financed? My hon. Friends have very adequately covered the main suggestion, which is that it should move towards some advertising. From what I have heard and read, and from programmes in which I have been involved during the past few weeks, I understand that to put it mildly, the BBC is running scared from the idea of any advertising on its networks.
The BBC's worry is wholly unfounded. It is argued that the quality of broadcasting will be reduced as a result of


advertising, but that is arrogance on the part of the BBC. Who would suggest that the programmes of independent television are of an inferior quality to those put out by the BBC? The truth is that all too often people tell us that independent television news — which is only part of independent television's output—is of a higher quality than that of the BBC. There can be no question but that the current affairs programmes and much of the entertainment put out by independent television are of a quality that is certainly equal to that seen on BBC.
Advertising already exists on the BBC. How many times do we sit in front of our television sets watching the BBC advertise the Radio Times, The Listener, BBC books, BBC video and radio tapes, not to mention BBC programmes? Indeed, great chunks of trailer material are put on at the junction of programmes. The British public are now perfectly accustomed to such advertising. It is advertising, although it is not paid commercial advertising. The British public are quite used to seeing that, and it would not think it unusual if commercial advertising was introduced into the same spaces between programmes or in the middle of them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) said, the polls and surveys show that many people find the advertisements carried on independent television highly acceptable productions, which are of a very high quality in terms of film work and general production. There is no hann in looking further at such advertising and at that sort of British standard of advertising on the BBC.
We are always being told that we shall get the standards of American trans-Atlantic television if we introduce such advertising. The same applies to trans-Atlantic radio. I do not believe that that will be the case.
As a former broadcaster, I have heard a great deal of that sort of thing from the other side of the Atlantic. Britain's broadcasting standards are now so firmly based that we are never likely to move to the constant churning out of commercials in the middle of a programme. We shall not have the experience which one so often has on the other side of the Atlantic.
I do not wish to delay the House, because all hon. Members wish to hear the Opposition's response, although they amount to only one Member at the moment. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has just become two. Reinforcements have arrived. In addition, the House will wish to hear the response from the Home Office.
As I said at the beginning, the debate should simply be a curtain-raiser for a major debate on the matter before we proceed further. There is much worry, particularly in the minds of pensioners — I have many of those in my constituency—about the prospect of a £65 licence fee for a further three years. There is a worry about how much higher the figure will go. With the constant wish of the BBC to expand its empire, who knows where the BBC licence fee will go? At what point will it reach £100 a year and at what point will it go even higher? The problem cannot simply be tackled by the suggestions of some of my hon. Friends that we should move to curtail the activities of the BBC. This is the moment for a much more radical look at the financing of the BBC.
My hon. Friend the Minister may wish to know, if he does not already, that there are many producers and directors in the BBC who also wish that to happen. Let him not hold the idea that people within the corporation necessarily want to see the licence fee continued in

Britain. They believe that for perhaps too long now resources have been tight because of the format of the licence fee. They would wish, in terms of some of the technological developments and in terms of their productions, to be able to see that the BBC's finance is on a truly competitive basis with the independent networks. If the Home Office is prepared to grasp that nettle and to have full discussion with hon. Members and with the wider public about the future financing of the BBC that will be welcome indeed.
I urge my hon. Friend, if he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary feels that the time is too short to move to something new within the next few months—I would understand that—to move to no more than one year of licence fees for the BBC. If the rumours of the £55 charge for the coming year are correct, that may be about right. At that point I would say to my hon. Friend that a full debate must take place in the House and among the public about the future.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I join hon. Gentlemen in congratulating the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on being fortunate enough to win the lottery for this debate, and on initiating an interesting, though albeit one-sided, debate on an extremely important subject. It is a pity that he spoiled his case by degenerating in part of his speech to a generalised attack on the British Broadcasting Corporation. A hostility to the BBC was shown overtly in some cases and implicitly in all the speeches from Conservative Members. Hon. Gentlemen also showed envy and jealousy at some of the salaries being earned by technicians, directors and performers.
The debate was obviously triggered by the BBC's application for an increase in the licence fee for the next three years, and by the report of the media policy group of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, which contains proposals to allow advertising on all BBC, radio and television channels. Clearly it has a sharp eye to its narrow self-interest and little thought for the needs of the BBC, ITV or viewers.
We are implacably and fundamentally opposed to the introduction of advertising on BBC radio and television. The introduction of advertising would damage the BBC, the ITV companies, local commercial radio and local provincial newspapers. Most important, it would substantially erode the standards of the BBC and ITV. If advertising were carried, some programme makers and schedulers would inevitably think — even if only unconsciously—that they had an obligation to those who were paying for the programmes and financially supporting advertising. That will affect the output and style—

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I cannot give way. I am the only Opposition Member to speak and I have a great deal to say in what has been a one-sided debate. The hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends spoke for a considerable time — indeed, far longer than I or the Minister will have to speak. I should like to give way and participate in debate, but hon. Gentlemen have prevented that.
The institution of advertising would also mean, the bigger the audience, the larger the income. Therefore,


there would inevitably be pressure on broadcasters for high-rating programmes that attract the largest possible audiences and, therefore, the greatest income. We would have a constant diet of pap, such as Blankety Blank, which was derided by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), chat shows, and quiz programmes. They may be good of their kind and right in their place, but they are not the appropriate constant diet. We would be reduced to the appalling and abysmal level of television in the United States. The advent of advertising on the BBC would destroy public service broadcasting, of which the Labour party is rightly proud, and which is the envy of the rest of the world. We seek to protect the integrity of broadcasting, and not to destroy it through the introduction of advertising.
We cannot accept that there should be advertising on one part of the BBC or for a limited period during the day. To introduce any sort of advertising would be to embark on a dangerous slippery slope. It would provide a temptation for future Governments, when confronted with proposals from the BBC for an increase in the licence revenue, take the easy option and extend the range of advertising on the BBC.
Moreover, it is not merely the BBC's standards that are likely to be damaged. As many observers testify, there would be a struggle between the BBC and the independent television companies for what they say is a limited cake. I know that Conservative Members say that that is not the case, but it is a matter of judgment and belief.
On my side of the argument—Conservative Members have other evidence to adduce on their behalf—is the letter to The Times on 8 December 1984 from the chairman of Granada Television, Denis Forman. He says:
All experienced broadcasters know that the introduction of advertising on BBC television is bound to lead to a struggle for revenue since there is not enough available to support more than one of the two major broadcasting systems … If the BBC were to have only five minutes of advertising each evening"—
more than one Conservative Member this evening has proposed something similar to that, implicitly recognising that there is something slightly disreputable about having advertising throughout the normal schedule—
the result could be a drop of £110 million in the annual revenue of ITV. The profits of the ITV system in the last year were less than £100 million before levy and tax.
Of course, Mr. Forman has a vested interest, but he makes an important point. I would not have thought that Conservative Members would wish to damage ITV, just as they would not wish to damage the BBC. The Opposition would not wish to take steps to damage either.
Such remarks do not come only from those who have a vested interest in protecting the monopoly of the independent stations. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West quoted Mr. Rodney Harris, the media director of the advertising agency that is largely responsible for the current debate, D'Arcy MacManus and Masius. However, he did not quote all Mr. Harris's statement. He said, in the document provided to all Members of Parliament by the BBC:
Not everyone has appreciated that if the BBC went commercial tomorrow and sold advertising at six minutes per hour of total broadcasting, as on ITV, that the ITV companies would all go bankrupt the day after tomorrow. Quite simply there is not enough advertising money to fund all UK broadcasting.

He was quoted by several Conservative Members in support of their case for advertising, and it ill becomes them to deride his judgment and his knowledge when I quote him in support of my case.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I also quoted the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but that does not mean that I agree with everything he says. People can be right in some places and wrong in others. That applies to Mr. Harris. It was an extreme case.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. All that I am saying is that the introduction of advertising on the BBC would damage it. I also believe that it would damage the ITV companies. My belief—[Interruption.] I listened courteously to Conservative Members; I hope that they will extend similar courtesy to me. My assertion was based on the evidence produced by Rodney Harris and others. It is a belief; none of us could prove it one way or the other. The potential benefits, if there are any, of advertising on BBC television are outweighed by the potential dangers that I mentioned.
Not only Rodney Harris and Denis Forman, but Saatchi and Saatchi make my case for me. The latter's report, "Funding the BBC — The Case for Allowing Advertising", stated:
The threat to radio is much more complex to define"—
I acknowledge that—
but it can be said with some certainty … that there is a risk to ILR that might pose problems to the financial viability of some stations.
It is no more and no less than a risk, although it must be taken into account. To a large extent, it is irrelevant whether the onset of advertising on the BBC would damage the independent television companies, would ensue that there is a struggle for less advertising revenue, or would damage independent commercial radio and local newspapers. There are important additional considerations, but even if that argument could be sustained, we would still resort to the argument of principle that it is inappropriate and would be damaging to the best interests of public service broadcasting.
Nor is the suggestion appropriate that the BBC's revenue should be raised through taxation. It is superficially a much more attractive method because it is more simple, and less painful, and the cost would be less direct to the individual viewer. A progressive system of taxation is more fair than the licence fee, which is a regressive system that hits hardest those who are poor.

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I have already said why I cannot give way.
There are great dangers to the BBC in a taxation system of funding. Inevitably, it would quite properly be subject to Treasury control, and to scrutiny of its internal accounting system and policy decisions. It would be subject to Home Office accountability for expenditure on a detailed day-to-day basis. Once it is subject to Treasury and Home Office accountability, hon. Members would quite properly wish to subject it to parliamentary accountability, for instance on the efficacy of its programmes and particular stations. We might have a view as to whether particular stations should be closed. That is a dangerous road for any Government to go down, and no Government of either party have so far been prepared to tread it.
This has not been mentioned in the debate tonight, but in previous exchanges in the House, both at Question Time and in other debates, it has been pointed out that the universities have managed to retain their independence while being funded, through the University Grants Committee, by the Government. However, a great deal of the autonomy and independence of universities has been eroded, not least by the actions of this Government.
Therefore, we are left with the licence as the best, most appropriate and most sensible means of raising the revenue for the BBC. It is right that the Government should have to determine the overall level of licensing. Every hon. Member must know that this is an important and sensitive issue, and it is right and proper that the decision on the level of the licence should be a political one determined by the Government. They have the responsibility to determine the overall budget that they are prepared to provide to the BBC. They have to decide what is reasonable and appropriate in the economic circumstances of a given time, and match that to the needs of the BBC.

Mr. Chope: What does the hon. Gentleman think is the right level for the new licence fee?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman should not be silly. If he thinks that such a question will embarrass me or catch me out, he is being both naive and absurd, which can perhaps be accounted for by the lateness of the hour at which we are debating this issue.
Having made those decisions, the Government may decide on a figure that the BBC feels is not enough. However, it can then supply its own competing priorities in terms of programmes, capital and current investment, and it can determine its own functions. For example, it can decide whether it wishes to continue breakfast television or embark on more ambitious programmes for local radio. That is properly a matter that should be left to the BBC within the confines of the overall financial strategy determined by the Government in allocating the licence. I prefer the BBC to be more selective in its functions, and to aspire to more excellence rather than to cover the whole sector. However, I resist the suggestion that that should be anything other than a matter for the BBC to decide.
The BBC has suggested that the licence fee be increased to £65, pegged for three years, to April 1988. I accept that that is, as Alasdair Milne, the BBC's director-general, said in his submission to Members of Parliament, the best bargain in Britain. No doubt it is, but the problem is that we cannot always afford bargains. I wish that we could. The fee may well prove to be a bargain, but at that price it may not be a bargain that we can afford or that the country can afford to pay.
As the BBC says in its thoroughly researched, well-presented submission to the Home Secretary and hon. Members in general, the fee may be good value. Clearly, the annual cost of a licence is good value, using the BBC's basis for the increase — making the licence fee equivalent to the cost of buying a pint of milk or a newspaper a day, or buying 20 cigarettes a week. I do not believe that any hon. Member would dissent from the suggestion that we obtain more impartial information and entertainment in a day from the BBC, in its various forms, than from the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph or the Daily Express. And the cost is equivalent.
The price suggested by the BBC may be reasonable in terms of what the BBC wants to do and can provide. We

must accept that it is a great deal of money for all households, particularly the poor. There may be a case for saying that the BBC should not get all it wants at this time. There needs to be a much more thorough analysis of the proposal for an increase and a far more balanced debate on the BBC's future financing.
The Opposition do not want an erosion of the way in which the BBC is financed and retains its independence, but we should like more time to consider whether it is appropriate to fund the BBC to the extent it requests. We are especially concerned, as some Conservative Members said, about the effect of the increased fee on low income groups, particularly pensioners. At whatever level, the BBC licence represents a high proportion of the income of 7 million pensioner households. I believe that every hon. Member realises that the BBC's proposal has already led to a great deal of controversy and a great outcry from pensioners. I have received their complaints in my mailbag and pensioners have turned up at my surgery to discuss the matter.
Pensioners are extremely anxious and deeply distressed about their ability to raise the money required. Many already find it difficult to find sufficient funds to pay the present licence, without having to go without other necessities. Many pensioners are heavily dependent on television. Many are housebound and inactive, and a considerable proportion are ill. As the BBC points out, pensioners watch 20 per cent. more television than other viewers. Clearly, it is unjust that some pensioners should have to pay a full licence fee when others, who are also pensioners, live through no fault of their own in sheltered housing where they receive a concession and pay no more than a 5p licence fee.
This is a great cause of resentment and bitterness among pensioners. They point out that they will have to pay the new licence fee of £65, while hotels will pay the same fee for 15 sets and a standard fee for every five additional sets. It is clearly wrong, unacceptable and indefensible, as I am sure every Government Member who has participated in this debate would say, for the Savoy to have free television sets in its rooms while pensioners in my constituency—in Stockbridge village, Contril farm and Prescot — on Merseyside generally or anywhere else in the country would have to pay a full fee. That has always been unjust and inequitable, so it is important that I renew and reaffirm the Opposition's commitment to enable all pensioners to have free television licences. One of the first acts of the next Labour Government, if elected after the next general election, will be to ensure that our pensioners no longer have to suffer the anxiety and distress of finding large slices of their income to view what they regard as a social necessity. Instead, they will all be able to watch television relieved of that burden and in the knowledge that they will receive licences free as of right.
The Opposition's aim is to preserve the BBC's integrity and standards and to enhance the quality of life and the incomes of our pensioners. It is also to preserve the BBC's political independence. That clearly is and has been under threat from the Government.
The Prime Minister, not least, has been leading the way in attempting to threaten, cajole, bully and impose pressure on the BBC to influence its choice of programmes and scheduling. The Prime Minister above all should be the guardian of the integrity, impartiality and political independence of our major public service broadcasting corporation. Instead, she has exhibited a narrow-minded


parochialism and a hostility, manifested also by many of her hon. Friends tonight, towards the BBC, and has attempted overtly to exert pressure on programme makers and schedulers. That is unacceptable, unprecedented and indefensible.
Much worse than that has been the recent disgraceful and inexcusable display of threatening petulance exhibited by the chairman of the Conservative party, the Paymaster General. He, as hon. Members will recall, complained about a "Panorama" programme about the Conservative party and alleged Right-wing infiltration. In The Times of 13 February 1984 he is quoted as saying that the "Panorama" programme
alleged links between Conservative MPs and extreme right wing groups"—
and
contained smears and innuendoes and used undemocratic techniques.
He went on to say it contained
outrageous sentiments … guilt by association and McCarthyite comment.
He gave a warning that
very serious action would have to be taken.
That report goes on to refer to the chairman of the Conservative party and the Chief Whip requesting a meeting with the director-general to protest about that programme.
We then had a saga of petulant, hysterical bullying of the BBC and its officials by the chairman of the Conservative party over that programme. He made several substantial allegations which the director-general spent two days going through, every one of which was found not to be substantiated. To this day, those apparent McCarthyite smears, innuendoes and undemocratic techniques have not led to one official complaint from the chairman of the Conservative party, the Chief Whip or any Conservative Member to the Braodcasting Complaints Commission. The threat of it was reported in The Times of 17 March, but as of 31 March not one complaint had been received by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. There may well have been things wrong with that programme—

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should be brought to the attention of the House that the programme to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is the subject of legal action. It is inappropriate for the hon. Gentleman to refer to it in this detailed and lengthy way, as it is sub judice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand the position to be that if a date has been set down for legal proceedings the matter is sub judice and should not be referred to. The Chair does not know the exact position of the proceedings. It might be as well if the hon. Member were to avoid referring to cases.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am well aware of the sub judice rules in the House. As the hon. Gentleman should know, given his legal background, no cases are before the courts at the moment and none are set down; nor have I spoken about any hon. Member who is involved in a case. In any event, when we are talking as we are today about a matter of great public interest, it is proper and appropriate for Parliament to comment properly on the issues while not in any way derogating

from the need to comply with the sub judice rule. I think that I have done that. If the hon. Gentleman had paid a little more attention to what I was saying, he would have acknowledged that.
We saw a deliberate, sustained and premeditated campaign to put pressure on the BBC on the content of its political programmes. If there were features of the programme which needed to be complained about, that should have been done through the civil courts, as the hon. Gentleman says is being done, or through the proper complaints procedure of the BBC. A Minister should not, aided and abetted by the Government Chief Whip, have been browbeating the director-general of the BBC. No doubt the Minister threatened that, if proper amends were not made, the BBC's application for a licence fee increase would not receive the same sympathy and consideration that would otherwise have been offered.
It is ironic that all the information for the programme which was the subject of complaint emanated from the young Conservatives. It was the act of a political pipsqueak, as I think the Minister was called. He acted in a petulant, bullying, intimidatory and little-Hitler fashion. It is an example of the threat that the Government pose to the BBC and to standards in public life. It was an offensive and unwarranted smear on the impartiality—

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a debate about the funding of the BBC. Save that the hon. Gentleman is referring in the most indirect and oblique way to the BBC, I submit that his remarks are entirely out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). What he has said so far has not been out of order.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) should be aware that his interventions are taking time from the Minister's reply, which we all want to hear.
As I was saying, the Minister cast an offensive and unwarranted smear on the integrity, political impartiality and independence of the BBC. It was an attempt to intimidate the BBC and to cause it to cower.
We are debating the funding of the BBC and its application for an increase in the licence fee, and thus its funding, in the context of a Government who do not have the best record as a protector of individual civil liberties or of our public services. If the Government can attack democratically elected local authorities, to the great dismay and concern of Conservative Members and of those in another place, if they can attack the long-estabished democratic rights of voluntary organisations such as trade unions, if they can erode the academic freedom and independence of our universitites and other institutions of higher education, and if they can display, as the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party have, outright prejudice, bias and hostility to the BBC, we must all of us be on our guard against any of their attempts to undermine the financial independence and political integrity of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The Opposition wish to protect the standards of the BBC and its enviable record from the philistinism exhibited on Conservative Benches. We wish to protect the BBC from the greed and avarice that seems to motivate


Conservative Members and retain public service broadcasting and all that it means for standards in Britain in future.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the Minister of State have leave to speak again?

Mr. Shaw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your timely reminder and for offering me the opportunity to speak again.
I am in a pretty foul temper, having heard an outrageous contribution from the Opposition Front Bench. It was within order, but it was certainly not within courtesy or the practice of the House. The contribution by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), on a most important issue, more or less boils down to the fact that the Opposition are prepared to offer pensioners free television licences at a cost of £250 million on present bases, thus at a stroke removing about one third of the BBC's total annual income. That was a farcical statement, with no suggestion of where the money is to come from. We learnt just two things—first, that there will be not a penny piece from advertising and, secondly, that there will be no taxation. That is what the hon. Gentleman said. It is, therefore, an outrageous, unwarranted and completely unjustified statement of pseudo-policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) introduced a debate of great importance, and his speech was followed by contributions of the highest standing from Conservative Members. I have to say to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North that it is noticeable that throughout the debate he has had massive support on the Opposition Benches for the issues of the day. His hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has been a considerable attender—I have to grant him that —but I think that he is probably picketing his way into the next debate by obtaining a seat in good time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, West, for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), for Southampton, Itchin (Mr. Chope), for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) offered constructive contributions to the issue of financing the BBC, and, be it noted, most of them were, as I would expect from the Conservative party, reforming and radical contributions contrasted with the total absence of any contribution of a reforming or radical nature from the Labour party, which has so long sought to claim the monopoly on change.
We on Conservative Benches are able to discuss change, progress and the future of our great institutions in a rational and energetic way. That is the profound impression that I trust will be written into the pages of Hansard and observed by those outside the confines of the debate who most assuredly will look to what is being discussed here.
Therefore, I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions. I shall make an immediate response on one or two issues, My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling referred to licence evasion and the way in which the courts were handling it. He was right to say that the court system is concerned purely with the fine, not with refunding to the

corporation a chunk of the licence fee forgone. As my hon. Friend probably knows, licence evasion entails a maximum fine of £400, but every time someone is brought before the courts, the corporation identifies someone who does not have a licence, so the licence fee will be recovered from the individual. Therefore, there is some recovery of licence income.
My hon. Friend rightly put his finger on the actual amount of evasion that takes place. In the discussion about funding the corporation and the licence fee, my hon. Friends should bear in mind that television is very widespread—97 per cent. of homes have a television receiver, and it is the receiver that constitutes the right to charge for a licence.
About 1·6 million homes are currently not paying the television licence fee, which means that the corporation forgoes—admittedly against its entire efforts— income of about £60 million on licence evasion alone. It may be only 8 per cent. of the homes in question; nevertheless, it represents a significant licence income forgone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North referred several times to the compulsory levy. If that meant that everybody paid, today we might be discussing not a massive increase in the licence fee but a reduction. I make that point in parentheses to comment on the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, and merely say that there is a very large sum of money around in the licence fee application and that those who do not pay are creating a substantial problem in relation not only to the funding of the corporation but to what other contributors may have to pay to make BBC funding sufficient.
The main issues in the debate clearly revolved round other forms of funding than licence fees. The most prevalent argument was for advertising, although I noted with interest that my hon. Friends' views varied from those who said that it should be limited to television or radio in minutes or by types of programme to those who believed that it should be widespread and completely fund the corporation. Thus, there is a gradation of view as to where the corporation might look if it were seeking advertising revenue.
I note, too, the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton about sponsorship of programmes, suggesting that there are other forms of contribution from the commercial sector than spot advertising.
In the remaining minutes, my task is to set out the position as I now see it. As my hon. Friends know, the licence fee has existed for about 60 years, originally covering both television and radio. The system has stood the test of time under successive Governments as well as a fair amount of inquiry by various bodies examining the corporation and its funding—the most recent being the Annan report of 1977. But every Government and every inquiry concluded that the licence fee system was the best available means of financing the BBC in such a way as to preserve its independence and to enable it to fulfil its wide-ranging obligations of public service broadcasting. Those obligations are imposed by royal charter, licence and agreement, so any change would involve a major shift not in legislative structure but in the structure on which the corporation is now run.
There is a great variety of view as to whether the output of the corporation on radio or otherwise suits the public taste. Nevertheless, we have to conclude that over a long


period the licence system has provided a major increase in broadcasting and programme provision and, broadly speaking, a very high level of public acceptability.
Alternatives start with taxation. I am glad that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North made a stand on this and said that no Government of whom he was a member would be involved in direct taxation for corporation funding because that would clearly bring the corporation much further into Government control and influence, almost on an annual basis. I am sure that the whole House is anxious to avoid that. I should say at once that the Government do not regard taxation as a suitable way of replacing the existing system.
Advertising is the most frequently argued solution that would be acceptable. It is argued that a limited injection of advertising revenue would reduce or at least avoid any increase in the present licence fee and at the same time provide the corporation with sufficient funding to compete with ITV on more or less equal terms. It is suggested that the amount of advertising revenue could be stepped up each year, so that the fee could be reduced in real terms and perhaps eventually become just a nominal amount or even disappear altogether. That is certainly a very tempting proposition and it merits close scrutiny.
A further factor would be a view about total advertising revenue and availability and whether that would increase at a sufficient rate to allow the corporation to be funded in that way. Having been involved in these matters from time to time in an earlier career, I must point out that the line between fast and famine in the margarine advertising business is not all that thick. Certainly, there are swings and roundabouts which can operate very quickly indeed. It is by no means certain that advertising revenue will continue to grow at the same rate as in the past 10 years. In fact, ITV revenue this year looks certain to fall short of the £1,000 million forecast for 1984, even though only two or three months ago it seemed likely to reach that figure. As some of my hon. Friends will know, there has been a sharp downturn in revenue in the past two and a half months. ITV is not the only consumer of advertising revenue. Consumption is widely spaced across newspapers and other media.
There would have to be a real reliance upon advertising revenue to supply sufficient funds for the corporation. If advertising were to be introduced into BBC programmes, it would have to be done gradually, with the licence fee revenue remaining the major part of the corporation's income for some time.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the effect of Channel 4 entering the market —although the same arguments were used in that case—has been substantially to reduce the production costs of advertisements, which in some cases represent the bulk of the cost of running an advertising programme? By reducing the price, one can increase the supply.

Mr. Shaw: Yes, I have noticed that there has been little deterrent effect as yet; but my hon. Friend will know that the average viewership of Channel 4 is about 6 per cent. If that percentage were to increase to a level that was seriously competitive with other ITV channels, the question whether it would draw away more costs from the advertising pool would become relevant.
There are problems connected with how advertising could be introduced. At present the licence revenue income, at about £770 million a year, is very substantial. Any replacement for it would have to be of a comparable size and ability to grow. Expenditure in the current financial year—the last of the licence fee settlement—is greater than the licence fee income. The cost to the BBC of providing television and radio services is expected to be about £70 million more than the licence fee income this year. So, with a modest allowance for increased costs in 1984–85, the BBC would probably need £100 million more than the present licence fee produces in order to maintain services at the present level. Such a sum could not be generated by, say, one 15-second advertisement on television each hour. It represents between 10 and 15 per cent. of ITV's total advertising revenue. If, as seems likely, competition between ITV and the BBC for that revenue were to drive down advertising rates—my hon. Friends might wish that to happen, because there has been insufficient competition between ITV companies hitherto — competition would oblige the BBC to take more advertising to bring in the necessary revenue.
Another suggestion is that the BBC might take advertising on only some of its services. Radio 1 is often singled out as a service that would be suitable. The cost of providing Radio 1 is about 2 per cent. of the BBC's total expenditure. The saving on each licence under such an arrangement would be about £1. Advertising on the whole of BBC radio might double that saving, but the area is not of the same order of magnitude as other areas mentioned by my hon. Friends.
I have already considered whether there is enough advertising revenue to fund the BBC. Another consideration is whether viewers would find advertising acceptable. My hon. Friends can point to the rapid and healthy development of ITV, which suggests that advertising has not been a bar to growth. Much of the advertising material produced is of a very high—indeed, almost entertaining—quality. I was somewhat worried when my hon. Friends talked of urging their spouses to put on the kettle in the commercial breaks. That would have a serious effect on audiences.
I am not ruling out advertising for all time as a source or partial source of finance. The BBC's licence agreement has for years recognised the possibility, provided that the Home Secretary agreed. My purpose has been to point out some of the difficult issues that must be faced and to demonstrate that a decision on advertising is neither straightforward nor simple.
Advertising deserves the most careful debate and decision. That is why we have made it clear that the Government do not want any radical departure from the licence fee system for BBC finance at this stage. My hon. Friends have also made their views clear. They want a review of the three-year system and the licence not to be committed for that time so that such a review can take place. I note that that is the message that my hon. Friends want to lay before the House and the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the BBC's application, so my response is therefore inevitably somewhat delphic. He will take what my hon. Friends have said as an expression of important opinion.
There are other problems. Efficiency has been mentioned. I assure my hon. Friends that, at the request of my right hon. Friend, the corporation has commissioned an independent consultant's report on its efficiency. It will


be completed in January and will be a crucial part of the submission that has now been met. Thus, the view that some of the costs, staffing levels and exigencies in programming that have been incurred should be put under careful scrutiny. That guarantee I can give in the assessment of the current application.
There is no easy solution to the problem of financing. Hon. Members have made it clear that, because the proposed increase is so considerable, the time is right to examine the proposal and the context in which it is put—how to sustain a level of funding which continues to allow the corporation to provide a range of programming which gives value for money by comparison with other media and a high standard of programming which has underpinned the BBC's reputation as one of the finest broadcasting systems in the world.

Maltby Common

Mr. Kevin Barron: I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the House the issue concerning the ownership of Maltby far and low common. The Department of the Environment is deciding whether to allow a limitation order to limit access to freedom of air and exercise for commoners in the village, who have enjoyed that right for perhaps 500 years.
The limitation order was introduced by section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925. There was a public inquiry in Maltby from 30 November to 3 December 1982 and I was one of the objectors. I had no idea that I should speak on the outcome of the inquiry as the hon. Member who represents Maltby. Many months later I was selected to fight the Rother Valley constituency, which I am proud to represent.
My stance has not changed. The first planning application to Rotherham metropolitan borough council was made by the Earl of Scarbrough for part of a golf course. The original plan was to use 38.5 acres of the 52.5 acres of Maltby far and low common. It was clear that the application was unlikely to be accepted as the site is one of special scientific interest and has been designated by a Yorkshire naturalists' trust as one where no buildings can be erected and to which people do not have the right of air and exercise, as would be normal on common land. The revised plan on which the inquiry was held proposed that 16.5 acres be taken from Malby far and low common to complete a golf course to be run by Sandbeck Golf and Country Club Ltd., a private company composed of a few business men. The idea was that the Earl of Scarbrough should use parts of Maltby common to complete an 18-hole golf course.
Another golf course is needed in my constituency. I earnestly hope that one will be built in that area, as it would provide a facility for my constituents and people in surrounding constituencies. But I object to the idea that the Earl of Scarbrough should take 16·5 acres from Maltby common to complete his golf course, when he has right of access to between 2,000 to 3,000 acres of land which he owns. The 20,000 inhabitants of Maltby have the right to use 114 acres in total for air and exercise, and even that amount is restricted because some of it comprises sports grounds owned by collieries and local authorities.
Although the limitation order affects only two commons, Maltby common is one of four and comprises about 76 acres. For that reason, 16·5 acres of this land should not be handed over to Sandbeck Golf and Country Club Ltd., by the Earl of Scarbrough and taken away from the people of Maltby.
I have sought this debate to discuss the specific question of ownership. I do not intend to go into detail about the limitation order, or into the many aspects of the report of the inspector, a solicitor appointed by the Department of the Environment to carry out the public inquiry. However, some aspects are important. The public inquiry was originally held in Maltby civic centre, but within minutes it was realised that the room could not hold the number of people wishing to attend. As a result, it was suspended for several hours and re-opened in the Methodist church hall, which could hold a sizeable audience.
The question of ownership was raised early in the proceedings and, indeed, had been raised publicly on


numerous occasions. The issue was whether the Earl of Scarbrough owned Maltby far and low commons. He claimed ownership on the basis that they were manorial wastelands, and that as lord of the manor of Maltby he owned them.
At that time, the inquiry inspector accepted that claim, and in paragraph 152 of his report he talked about specific evidence to show whether the Earl of Scarbrough was the owner. He commented on the tithe commutation agreement of 1839, and said there was some doubt about who was the lord of the manor when an Earl Fitzwilliam had signed the tithe commutation agreement. He said he could not believe that if it was incorrect that the Earl of Scarbrough was lord of the manor.
it would not have been challenged immediately by the rightful Lord, whoever he might be".
Straight away the inspector jumped to an assumption that, because there was a common land order, and because a noble lord who was a big landowner lived nearby, any land had to have a rightful owner. I submit that that is not necessarily so. It does not mean that anybody has to be the lord of Maltby far and low common or the lord of the manor of Maltby.
The lord of the manor system is based upon feudal law. The feudal system was introduced into this country by Duke William of Normandy, following the invasion and conquest of England. The manor was the basic unit of local government and administration, not land ownership. It is necessary to stress this point as the Norman earls were great land thieves. Their propensity for theft and squabbling over land has continued to this day.
In return for their services the earls were granted manors and other portions of lands by Duke William. Subject to swearing fealty to the Crown and leaving a sufficiency for others, who could be either free people or various kinds of serfs, the remainder of the profits which could be accrued from the land and administration of the manor would be enjoyed by the lords of the manors which they respectively held.
But the lords never actually owned the land. They just held it and enjoyed the profits so long as they lived. If, in turn, the lords of the manors allowed somebody to occupy land, this was only for the duration of the feoffee's life. If on death they wished to pass on their tenancy to somebody else they had to hand back the land to the lord of the manor and pay a fine for the privilege of so doing. The person who wished to take over the tenancy could do so only by payment of a fine to the lord of the manor. Subject to swearing fealty, and so on, this transference of tenancy was not by right but only by the will and acceptance of the lord of the manor.
Similarly, the lord of the manor held the manor only during his lifetime. On death, the manor reverted to the Crown. Only by swearing fealty, and so on, were the manors then bestowed on their heir or assign. In other words, death always terminated both individual tenancies and lordships. This was known as the law of mortmain.
The history of Maltby manor goes back to those days. It was one of 233 manors that were allotted by William I to Roger de Builli. It was called the Great Fee. The manors originally held by de Builli were administered as one large estate, called an honour, this being the honour of Blyth. The separate manor of Blyth was given to a religious order. A castle was built in the village of Tickhill. The

administration of the honour of Blyth was handed over to the castle in Tickhill. It then became the honour of Tickhill.
The direct line of Roger de Builli died out. After much bickering, claim and counterclaim and a few acts of revolt against the Crown, the honour of Tickhill became settled with Alice, Countess of Eu who was based on London, Cambridge and her French estates. The castle and honour of Tickhill was sub-infeudated — that is, managed for her by appointed representatives. The sub-infeudatories in turn appointed fee farmer agents to manage various of the individual manors. The Countess of Eu sub-infeudated to the de Viponts. Alice de Vipont gave Sandbeck to the monastery at Roche, which is in my constituency. As my story unfolds it will be important to remember that there was a manor of Sandbeck and a manor of Roche. They were separate from the manor of Maltby. This may have led to great confusion in the past. The Countess of Eu confirmed the grant because all that Idonea de Vipont could grant was the profit she would make as a sub-infeudatory. In turn, the Crown had to confirm the grant by Alice of Eu, which confirmed the grant by Idonea de Vipont. This is how the feudal system worked.
Eventually Alice, Countess of Eu was told, as were all other people who owned land in England and France, "You hold land in England or France, but not in both." Alice, Countess of Eu, opted for France and from that day the Great Fee of de Builli reverted to the Crown and became part of the Duchy of Lancaster. All the old records are filed in the public records office under the title "Duchy of Lancaster papers".
The Earl of Cumberland and others like him were simply sub-infeudatories under the Duchy. In 1837, when the Earl Fitzwilliam agreed to the enclosure of the open field of Maltby, he did so as the sub-infeudatory of the duchy of that part of the original de Builli fee situated in and around, and administered from, the honour and castle of Tickhill.
If the Earl Fitzwilliam or anyone who succeeded him as sub-feudatory holder of the honour and castle of Tickhill had parted with the separate manor of Maltby, the holder of the manor of Maltby—what remained after the grants to the church — would be only a sub-infeudatory of a sub-infeudatory — in other words, a fee farmer to a greater fee farmer who held the lands of the duchy, as of the Crown. The statute in relation to that was one of Quia Emptores in 1289 and it is implicit in that statute that sub-infeudation means that the lordship of any manor does not make sub-infeudatories of the lords. They simply remain tenants. That statute is still used in land conveyancing. The lordship could not have been handed down.
The Earl of Scarbrough married in about 1725 into the family of the Earl of Castleton, which owned more land in that area and in Lincolnshire. A book called "The History of South Yorkshire" by the Rev. Joseph Hunter was printed in 1828. It covered all the lands and manors of South Yorkshire. On page 273 it is shown clearly that at the time of the death of the second Viscount Castleton on 13 November 1640 an abstract was taken of the inquisition after his death. I assume that that covers what land he held.
The list included the manor of Sandbeck:
besides his lands in Lincolnshire, he had The manor of Sandbeck.
That is an important fact, because the abstract adds:


The manor of Maltby, held of the king as of the castle of Tickhill.
The manor of Austerfield, which is quite nearby, was another of the manors handed to the honour of Tickhill and was held under the king as of the manor of East Greenwich, and the manor of Slade Houton, which is also close by and is part of the ecclesiastical manor of Maltby and is in my constituency, was also "held of the king".
It seems that when the Earl of Scarbrough married into the family of the Earl of Castleton he was perhaps the lord of the manor of Sandbeck, because that was not held as of the castle of Tickhill and was not held by what we now call the Duchy of Lancaster. There may have been great doubts about who was lord of the manor of Maltby—if there was a lord of the manor. It seems that the lordship of the manor was held by the Crown and could not, therefore, have been passed down through generations of a family.
The tithe commutation agreement in 1841 provided that people had to pay money to the parish if they were on the land and were growing crops and so on.
The tithe was about one tenth of what was produced, and it was paid to the local church. The tithe apportionment agreement for Maltby showed that the owner of Maltby's far and low commons and of Woodlee common and Stonegreen was Maltby township. As it happened, none of the commons was being used for any agricultural purpose. No commoners were growing crops on them as far as I can discover. Consequently no tithes had to be paid to the church.
But it is an important fact that the tithe commutation agreement in 1841 said, in effect, that the owner was Maltby township. It would seem that that was never challenged by the then Earl of Scarbrough. Another important point involves the Commons Act 1876. I have not seen the statute, but I understand that that Act had to be signed by all landowners in the area, and in the presence of the lord of the manor. At that time, the Earl FitzWilliam was adjudged to be the lord of the manor. That does not appear in any title deed, but he was adjudged to be the lord of the manor, and was present for the signing. Many people have said that it really does not matter, because the open fields enclosure and the tithe commutation provisions are not proof of evidence and are not title deeds. In the last century the Earl of Scarbrough's family twice applied to Parliament to enclose Maltby far and Maltby low commons. Objections were made. At the public inquiry it was said that those objections involved the ownership of Maltby far and low commons. I have been through the records with regard to both of those agreements. The 1879 one went to a Select Committee, where evidence was taken. I have read through the Select Committee's report, and there is nothing in the record to say that the enclosure legislation went through Parliament— despite the fact that two applications were made — because of the question of ownership.
The only thing that I could find with regard to the 1879 inquiry was that when the enclosure commissioners held two public meetings in the village of Maltby, a man said that the commoners did indeed own the commons. At that time, for a man to turn to the lord of the manor—albeit perhaps not the lord of the manor of Maltby—and to say that he objected to his claim to have the ownership and rights of common land in the area, would have been a big and brave thing for someone to do. I do not know whether that would still be the case in 1984.
Evidence was given to the Select Committee on the 1879 enclosure by the master cutler of Sheffield, the lord mayor of Sheffield and by the lord mayor of Rotherham. The area is very beautiful, and was then too. It is visited, and was then. People left the industrial towns of, for example, Sheffield and Rotherham and went to Woodlee common, Stonegreen and Maltby far and low commons for their holidays. Maltby village was known as a beauty spot and many people, even at the beginning of the century, used to go on holiday there. They would go on to the far and low commons and use them for exercise, while having rights as adjudged commoners. That will be restricted if the limitation order goes through now.
What is interesting about the 1879 evidence was that the people in Sheffield, and, I believe, the master cutler, said that there were only two commons where they could go where they had rights of air and exercise without trespass. One was Lindrick common, which is just in north Nottinghamshire, not far from Maltby common. The other was Maltby common.
We have now lost Lindrick common to a golf course, although I do not know exactly when. But if the mayor of Sheffield were giving evidence again now, I am sure that he would say that whereas they once had two commons, they now have only one.
There has been a massive population expansion in Maltby alone, which is known as no more than a township. Over 20,000 people live there. They have the right at present to walk on all areas, certainly of Maltby far common and on areas of Maltby low common, except for the site of special scientific interest in the charge of the Yorkshire Naturalist Trust because of its beauty. In those circumstances, I am sure that with commons commissioners today we could have had an interesting re-run of the decision on the enclosure in 1879.
Let me move on into this century. In 1919 the Finance Act was based in reality on an interesting form of land tax. It was stopped in another place, so no tax was ever levied on anybody. The district valuers had to go round all the land to find out who was the owner, to see whether they were in a position to pay a land tax as owner.
In the district valuer's report of 1915 the ownership of Maltby far and low commons was registered as being Maltby township. There is something strange, because on two occasions, in 1841 and again in 1915, when it was likely that some payments would have to to be made under contemporary Acts if one were the owner of the land, the Earl of Scarbrough or his predecessors sat back and were quite prepared to see the land in the hands of Maltby township.
I do not want to read too much into that, only to say that, as many hon. Members know, I was a coal miner at Maltby colliery before I came to the House. I have an avid interest in local history. I am a founder member of Maltby local history society. I happened to get hold of the royalties map for the Maltby main colliery company. I looked at it to see who claimed the ownership of Maltby far and low common at that time because when the colliery company mined under any land royalties were paid to the landowner. Lo and behold, on the royalties map, Earl Scarbrough's name appears in big letters all over the place, and on the two tiny patches of Maltby far and low commons is the Earl of Scarbrough's name again. Of course, he would wish to be owner of Maltby far and low commons because the Maltby miners were mining coal there and his family accrued quite a few pounds as a result.


I do not think for one minute that that was a massive percentage of the coal royalties paid to his family, because it was obviously a small plot of land when one looks round at the thousands of acres that Lord Scarbrough owned. It seems to smack of the fact that in 1915 the township of Maltby may have had to pay rent on the land while Lord Scarbrough was claiming coal royalties from mining it.

Dr. David Clark: I know that the area is attractive. Sir Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" begins by describing it as:
That pleasant part of England where flows the river Don.
Was Maltby an urban district, and I am right in thinking that there was right of access to the common under the 1926 legislation?

Mr. Barron: Yes, there was a Maltby urban district. For some strange reason many public records of crucial times for the question of ownership have gone astray. We continue to look for them.
I turn to section 156 of the inspector's report. Mr. Ferris, QC, was acting on behalf of the Rotherham metropolitan borough council. At the time of the inquiry the inspector seemed to be satisfied with the question of ownership. At that time many people did not know what was going on. Advice was taken from the QC who represented the Earl of Scarbrough and accepted, without the consideration of evidence that the protesters had, at the meeting.
At present Rotherham metropolitan borough council is consulting with the solicitors, J. J. Pearlman in Leeds, who represented objectors at the public inquiry. They are investigating the legal aspects of the ownership of Maltby far and low common. A prominent member of Rotherham metropolitan district council said publicly that it would seek to finalise the question of ownership of Maltby far and low common, even if it meant going to court. Perhaps because it was said at the public inquiry that the courts must decide the question of ownership, not the inquiry, that may be the case.
In section 157 the inspector states:
I do not consider there is an onus on the applicant to produce his deeds to enable objectors to endeavour to find planks on which to build a case in opposition.
If the Earl of Scarbrough has the title deeds of the land, the question of ownership could be settled quickly, amicably, without public delay or any more ado from the inquiry. There would be no more letters written saying that if he was not or is not the owner of Maltby far and low commons he should not have applied for the limitation order. If he showed the title deeds to those who say that he does not own them, the matter could be settled. If he finds trouble about doing that because of personal remarks made about him in connection with the ownership of the land, I shall go to his estate or to his representative in London to see the title deeds. I shall then pass on the evidence to those who still question whether he owns the land.
I tabled parliamentary questions about the matter during the past two months. The first was to the Department of the Environment on 22 November. I asked the Secretary of State,
what evidence he obtained, prior to the public inquiry in 1982 concerning Maltby common, to satisfy him on the ownership question.
I received this definite answer:

The evidence consisted of various documents including title deeds, and the opinion of Mr. Francis Ferris, QC, which was obtained by Rotherham metropolitan borough council." —[Official Report, 22 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 281.]
On 3 December I asked another question, although there were many more in between. I asked the Secretary of State,
if the deeds he saw from Messrs. Allen and Overy, solicitors in relation to Maltby common, were a deed of title to the specific ownership of Maltby far and low common.
Following the definite statement that the evidence had included title deeds, I got a very different answer on 3 December:
There was more than one deed and other documentation, examination of which satisfied my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the title to Maltby commons could be traced to the Earl of Scarbrough." — [Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 63.]
That is a little different from saying that title deeds had been seen. That highlights the vagueness of the question of ownership. If it was not vague before, it has certainly become vague after those answers from the Department of the Environment.
The limitation order that will be put on the commons is the first, if my information is correct, since 1925 for a golf course on public land. That was when the legislation was introduced. Indeed, I do not believe that a golf course has been put on common land this century. The decision will set a precedent for common land and people's rights to take air and exercise there.
Maltby common is used by Maltby people. I used it as a boy. However, in some ways it has been abused. A tenant farmer of the Earl of Scarbrough used parts of Maltby far common under the agriculture legislation that was passed during the war in the "Dig for Victory" campaign. In the 1960s the local council had a long fight to remove the tenant farmer from the common. Indeed, I remember working on that farm as a young lad. I was employed as a casual labourer to pick up stones from the land. We were filling wagons with stones, and then going to the other side of Maltby common and dumping them there. I now recognise that it is a beautiful area with much flora and fauna that is of great value to naturalists. I was not a naturalist then. I was paid by the tenant farmer to dump stones on Maltby far common.
At the public inquiry we heard that it would be a good idea to use that part of the common because it had become an eyesore. The Earl of Scarbrough should know all about that, because besides the fact that I was paid to dump stones at weekends and during the school holidays, it is well known in my area that the building company owned by the Earl of Scarbrough has been caught dumping on Maltby far common. The county council ordered the company to clear what it had been dumping, which was waste material from houses.
The question of ownership of Maltby far and low common must be resolved. If the Department makes a decision with such uncertainty still in the air, the issue will drag on for years. We must resolve it now. No doubt the Earl of Scarbrough will read this debate in Hansard tomorrow. A couplet has been made up by the people who have been trying to keep Maltby common for Maltby people, which is an honourable objective. It goes like this:
The law locks up the man or woman,
Who steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater villain loose,
Who steals the common from the goose.


Is that true in the case of the Maltby far and low commons? It was quoted at public meetings last century concerning Maltby far and low commons. The Earl of Scarbrough is the owner because he claims that it is manorial waste land and he is the lord of the manor of Maltby, but I would like to know the truth, and I should like the Department of the Environment to know as well. At the end of the day, this proposal will take up 16·5 acres of common land that Maltby people have had the right to walk on for hundreds of years.

Dr. David Clark: I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has presented his case, and for the diligent way in which he has collected the facts on this important matter. I declare an interest as chairman of the Open Spaces Society, which started in 1865. One of our earliest cases concerned Maltby common, and we were fighting against enclosures in the 19th century.
Therefore, we are greatly concerned about the latest limitation order. The Opposition would officially fully support the representations made by my hon. Friend. This land has belonged to the ordinary people of the Maltby district for generations. It looks as though it will be stolen from them, although it may be done legally. I urge the Minister on two points. First, if the Earl of Scarbrough, or anybody else wants an adjudication, but will not accept my hon. Friend, I am happy to offer the good offices of the Open Spaces Society, and I know that my hon. Friend would accept them.
Secondly, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no final decision will be taken on the limitation order until the ordinary people of Maltby have the right to continue their legal inquiries, that the case will be fought fairly, and when it is decided it will be in the light of proven evidence and not on the hearsay of a noble lord?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I join the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in congratulating the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on the way in which he presented his case. It was a fascinating tour de force of local history, which will be read with great interest by those who are interested in the area. I congratulate him on the way that he presented a complex and interesting case. It reminds us what a privilege it is to live in a country that has been so free from foreign invasion that we can argue about ownership going back to the 11th or 12th century, with some hope of finding records and unbroken continuity.
In cases such as this, I begin to feel that this is real politics. It was for matters such as this that hon. Members from both sides of the House went into politics. These are real matters that affect the people, and on which careful judgment has to be made. One has to think of tests by which one can measure these matters, and I can think of no better assessment than that of a great hon. Member, who sat for one of the university seats, which have been, perhaps sadly, abolished, although I believe that there is still a Conservative manifesto pledge in 1951 to reestablish them. We have not got around to doing that yet. That was Mr. A. P. Herbert, and one wonders what his view of a case such as this would be. When I come to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his

decision, I shall have Mr. A. P. Herbert looking over my shoulder to see that we make a decision that is commonsense and takes into account the traditions of the country.
I should like to put on the record a few points, most of which confirm the account of the procedures given by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. Perhaps it will be helpful if I give our understanding of what is happening. We shall carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's points, and any other relevant evidence that is offered, before making a final decision.
As the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 gave the public a legal right of access to areas of common land for air and exercise by virtue of their location in an urban district on 1 January 1926. My Department has been involved in this matter for a number of years, and I hope that that will assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not rushing into a premature decision. As he rightly said, Lord Scarbrough applied for an order to impose limitations and conditions as to rights of public access to parts of both commons.
Subsection (1) of section 193 of the 1925 Act provides:
The Minister shall, on the application of any person entitled as lord of the manor or otherwise to the soil of the land, or entitled to any commonable rights affecting the land, impose such limitations on and conditions as to the exercise of the rights of access or as to the extent of the land to be affected as, in the opinion of the Minister, are necessary or desirable for preventing any estate, right or interest of a profitable or beneficial nature in, over, or affecting the land from being injuriously affected".
Such an application was made by Lord Scarbrough to enable part of the commons, as we have been told, together with other land which was not common, to be used as a golf course. The wording of the proposed limitations was provisionally agreed, in accordance with the Department's normal practice.
The first occasion when the ownership of these commons was called into question, in connection with this application—although there may have been a history of cases — was following public notice of the proposed order. A number of objections were received and one ground of objection put forward by some of the objectors was that my noble Friend was not the owner of the commons and therefore not entitled to apply for an order under section 193.
The applicant for the order was given the opportunity to comment on all the objections, and various documents, including copies of title deeds, were provided by the applicant's solicitors to my Department.
The Rotherham metropolitan borough council objected to the proposed order, but not on ownership grounds. The borough council investigated the ownership question because of assertions that the council and not my noble Friend was the true owner of the commons. They sought counsel's opinion on this issue from Mr. Ferris. Having considered all the evidence, counsel concluded that the real evidence of title appeared to be all one way, in favour of the Earl.
This opinion was made available to my Department, and I have read it carefully. My legal advisers studied all the evidence of title which had been put forward by the applicant and Mr. Ferris' opinion, and concluded that my noble Friend Lord Scarbrough was the owner of the commons and had the status to make the application for the order. Subsequently, it was decided that a non-statutory public inquiry should be held to assist in


determination of the application for the order, but that this should not extend to the ownership question, as the Secretary of State was satisfied on this issue.
However, inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State have considerable discretion in their conduct of inquiries. When, at the opening of the inquiry, several of the objectors challenged the Secretary of State's ruling that the applicant was the owner of the commons, the inspector responded that he was prepared to hear legal submissions as to whether the Secretary of State had jurisdiction to make the order, but he stated that the inquiry could not be a forum for a detailed conveyancers' investigation of the title, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley said. The inspector also pointed out that only the courts could determine conclusively any question of title to land. The Queen's counsel representing the applicant at the inquiry indicated that he was not prepared to disclose details of the applicant's title, and the inspector ruled that the objectors were not entitled as of right to the title documents.
The inspector allowed the various parties to make their submissions on the ownership issue. These are set out in the inspector's report, to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley referred, and based on the evidence presented to him, the inspector reached the same conclusion as that previously reached by the Secretary of State — that the applicant was lord of the manor of Maltby and had the status to make the application.
After consideration of the inspector's report, the Secretary of State was disposed to accept the inspector's recommendation, which was to the effect that the order should be made reducing the area over which the limitations should apply and the number of limitations. However, it was decided that the applicant and the objectors should be allowed the opportunity to make representations about the proposed modifications, before the Secretary of State reached a firm decision. The respondents were originally given 21 days in which to respond, but in response to requests from several objectors, including Rotherham borough council, two extensions have been granted, and the new deadline is 15 January 1985.
Although representations have only been invited from objectors to the proposed modifications to the order, we have already received representations about the ownership issue, and have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, and consideration will be given to all such representations. I shall pay close attention to all the arguments put forward

by the hon. Gentleman. I shall need to study them and obtain legal advice about them. I shall take everything fully into account.
There has been pressure by objectors and by the hon. Member for copies of the ownership documentation which were supplied to the Department by the solicitors acting for my noble Friend to be made available. The trouble is that these documents are not ours and it is not for the Secretary of State to disclose them.
I must emphasise the distinction between the Secretary of State's duty and a court, if the matter came before a court. The Secretary of State's duty is to reach a reasonable decision. He must not lay himself open to legal challenge by taking a decision against the principles laid down in the Wednesbury rules. He cannot make a final legal judgment in the way that the court could. We have taken an unusual amount of trouble in this case to try to check the ownership, because questions were asked about it.

Dr. David Clark: This is an important point. Is the Minister saying that, if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes a limitation order and there is then a legal challenge, the "common" people could continue to have their right of access pending the court's decision?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall have to go carefully here, and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman after legal advice on the matter. It would be wrong of me to say, off the cuff, that we would wait indefinitely for a potential court challenge, because one might never come.
If a court challenge were mounted, it would be a serious matter, which the Department would wish to take into account. It would be wrong for me to try to settle that matter from the Dispatch Box now. I shall take further advice on it.
The Secretary of State must beware of legal challenge from either side. If he were to make an unreasonable judgment on the evidence before him he would be open to legal challenge. We must reach our decision on the basis of the evidence available to us. We are, as the House can see, taking considerable care to ensure that we do that.
If objectors wish to pursue strict proof of title, that must ultimately be done in court. The expertise of the hon. Member for South Shields is well known. We shall pay close attention to what he and the hon. Member for Rother Valley have said. We shall take further advice about the implications of any court case. I should be grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley if he would kindly keep the Department informed about any such developments, because they would plainly be relevant to any decision we make.

Dairy Industry (South-West Wales)

Dr. Roger Thomas: In the few minutes that we have at our disposal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to say that the farmers of south-west Wales—many of them small and some not so small—are facing a rather bleak Christmas. Milk quotas were introduced nine months ago and, unfortunately, confusion still reigns in the minds of so many in the farming community about their future. It is a community which I and the Secretary of State represent. We have been awaiting information about the hardship cases and the secondary quotas for a long time. Many of the farmers of south-west Wales are looking ahead three months to the negotiations for 1985–86 instead of looking back nine months.
I am sure that the small village of Llangadog is indelibly fixed in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was the scene of an example of militancy among the farming community to which we are not accustomed. That militancy stemmed from frustration and the fact that the milk quotas had been introduced like a bolt from the blue. They represented a U-turn for the agriculture policy of all Governments who have held office since the war. Many of us look back to the publication of the White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources". Until March, farmers were being urged to expand. The request was made to such an extent that in the past year milk production in Wales increased by 17 per cent. That was not far short of the expansion that took place in Northern Ireland. However, the additional quota in Northern Ireland amounted to almost double the quota that was to be made available to Welsh farmers.
We in Wales are concerned about the small farm with 40 cows or more, but not in isolation; our concern extends to all farms. The farmers have been somewhat reassured by an announcement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that farms with an annual production of 200,000 litres of milk will be looked after by redistribution, but they represent only about half of the farms in south-west Wales. There are many farmers with 40 cows and upwards who are waiting anxiously to learn whether the outgoers scheme can be extended to them. If the scheme is to be successful, additional money will have to be made available. There should be some arrangement whereby farms, whatever their size, are able to surrender, in part, their milk production.
Given the confusion that has developed over the past nine months, it appears that the farmers of south-west Wales and the entire agricultural community are worried. We are worried about the future of our creameries. Due to the especially dry summer and winter, milk production in south-west Wales has fallen to the extent that some of our creameries are not getting sufficient supplies. However, farmers' wives are discovering that massive Irish product importations are now to be seen in our shops. Our farms are subject to a 9 per cent. cut in quota, but during the negotiations which took place last March the Irish Republic was allowed a 5 per cent. increase in quota. For the farmers of south-west Wales, this has been a raw deal and an unfair state of affairs.
We are anxiously awaiting what the Minister has to say. Above all, the message from the farmers of south-west Wales is that, when the negotiations take place in March

next year, we must put forward a case, preferably through the personal intervention of the Minister, for an additional quota for the farmers of Wales, particularly south-west Wales. If we can get that additional quota, people's fears will be eased; they will know what their future is.
At the moment, in our colleges of agriculture in southwest Wales there is a considerable drop in the number of students. Why has that significant drop taken place? The reason is that farmers cannot afford to send their sons to the colleges of agriculture. If farming is to develop in south-west Wales, it is essential that the know-how and expertise is handed down from one generation to the next.
Therefore, we should look, not back at nine months of confusion, when people have hardly known what tomorrow would bring, but forward to the negotiations that are to take place in Brussels in the early spring. If Wales does not have a better deal for the year to come, many Welsh farmers will be unable to carry on.
The truth is that the farmers of Wales cannot diversify. Farmers are committed to dairy farming. The climate and topography is such that they can carry on only that type of dairy farming. Indeed, it galls the people of south-west Wales when they watch a Sunday afternoon television programme and see farmers from East Anglia—the corn farmers—telling the farmers of south-west Wales that, as a result of the imposition of quotas, they over-reacted. I challenge the farmers in those lucrative arable areas of England to come to south-west Wales, for there they will see real hardship.
We hope that the Minister will give us a ray of optimism. We know of his connections with my part of south-west Wales and the respect that the people have for him there. We anxiously await words of optimism, because, after nine months of darkness and pessimism, the farmers in that area are surely worthy of such optimism.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): I welcome the opportunity of this late —or early—hour to reply to the debate. In his closing words, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) referred to my connections with the part of Wales that he represents. I am delighted to see present my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who also represents a similar constituency that is greatly involved in the difficulties that I freely admit the dairy industry has been passing through recently. It is still affected, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the upheaval of quotas, and he stressed that the uncertainty has caused a great deal of worry.
The uncertainty and the difficulties are due not only to the introduction of quotas but to the effects of the long, dry summer. As a result, milk production in south and west Wales has suffered an unexpectedly large reduction. However, that is not a pattern that I expect to continue. I greatly sympathise with all producers throughout the United Kingdom, not only in south-west Wales, who have been badly affected by those events, especially those who have no alternative to milk and little scope to adapt their dairy enterprises to a lower level of production.
I also fully appreciate the concern that has been expressed about the difficulties arising from the new arrangements, but I believe that the quota system does represent a significant step, in combination with price restraint, towards containing the Community surplus, which, even with the introduction of quotas, is expected to cost over £2·4 billion this year.
I am sure that after the inevitable period of uncertainty and adjustment, dairy farmers will be better placed to take the necessary decisions on long-term planning and future investment and that the industry as a whole will be more stable and better placed to respond to market demands.
The Government have taken positive steps to ameliorate the effect of quotas on those most harshly affected. The one-year phasing in has reduced the immediate impact, but we foresaw that there would be particular difficulties for certain areas, such as Wales, where production increased sharply between 1981 and 1983. That is why we held back a quota reserve of 2·5 per cent. to assist not just the special cases provided for in the regulations but those producers who were carrying out development plans.
Some 4,700 Welsh producers applied for special case treatment. I must take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the chairman and members of the local panel of the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales for their invaluable work in processing those applications.
The Government are also making available £50 million over five years under the outgoers scheme, which is designed to help both those wishing to leave and those wishing to stay in milk production. Those leaving will receive compensation and the quotas surrendered will be re-allocated to those wishing to stay, giving priority to those who produced less than 200,000 litres in 1983 and providing an additional quota for those awarded an increase by the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales in respect of exceptional hardship applications.
I am sure that that is the best way to help small producers, who represent more than half the total number of producers in south-west Wales. In addition, the aid to small milk producers scheme is being continued and a lump sum payment of £209·20 will be made to all producers who delivered not more than 200,000 litres of milk to the Milk Marketing Board in the 1983 calendar year and were still delivering milk in August or September 1984.
Last, but by no means least, farmers within the area added to the less favoured area whose incomes are below comparable incomes have been able to obtain higher rates of grant under the capital grant schemes on work commenced after 28 February 1984. Eligible works are the same as those which previously attracted the higher rate in the original less favoured areas —except for roads, bridges and similar items which retain the standard rates. A wide variety of investments in the new less favoured areas, including sheep pens, drainage and grassland improvements, now qualify for the higher rate.
In addition, all those in the extended less favoured areas will, if they occupy at least 3 hectares of eligible land, be able to qualify for compensatory allowances from 1 January 1985. The allowances are paid on breeding ewes and cows but not on dairy cows, although dairy farmers who run a separate livestock enterprise can benefit from allowances on the sheep and beef cows.
I should add that farmers in the less favoured areas pay a reduced rate of co-responsibility levy on milk deliveries to the dairies of up to 60,000 kg. The actual rates of compensatory allowance were announced recently and will, I am sure, benefit many dairy producers in the extended area.
The agreement reached on 31 March 1984 cannot be altered, and future allocations from the Community contingency reserve will be negotiated at the 1985–86 CAP price-fixing talks. The Commission's proposals have yet to be published, and it would clearly be necessary to look at the proposals on milk not only in their own right but as part of the complete package as it affects the United Kingdom. That being so, we shall have to decide upon priorities, once we have had a chance to study the price proposals in the light of the United Kingdom's negotiating objectives as a whole, not only on agriculture but on any wider budgetary considerations.
Even at the reduced levels of quotas which are already laid down for 1985–86—
It being Nine o'clock am on Thursday, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

Human Embryos

9 am

Mr. Tony Favell: I beg leave to present three petitions collected by residents of the constituency of Stockport. They are all in identical terms. They affirm the petitioners' belief that the newly fertilised human embryro is a real, living, individual human being. I share that belief. They all oppose all practices that discriminate against the embryo or violate his human dignity and right to life. I share that opposition.
The petitions continue as follows:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure which involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned).
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I beg to ask leave to present three petitions on the protection of the human embryo, signed by nearly 1,000 petitioners living in, or being fortunately close to, my constituency of Yardley. The petitions are in the names of Mr. C. H. Greenhalgh of 35 Kathleen road, Yardley, Birmingham, Janet M. Felton of 17 Forest road, Yardley, L. Benbow of 14 Harnall Croft, Sheldon, Birmingham and Gail Aucott of 16 Broad road, Acocks Green, Birmingham.
The petitioners refer to and endorse the statement in the Warnock report that
the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation".
I concur with that view. My constituents pray
that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure which involves purchase or sate of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned).
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc. I join many hon. Members in hoping that such legislation will be brought before the House this Session, and that I shall be able to sponsor and support it.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Tom Sackville: I beg to ask leave to present a petition in the name of Mr. Andrew Blackwood of Bolton Life group, 28 Brentford avenue, Bolton and signed by 2,200 residents of Bolton, West. The petition affirms that the newly fertilised human embryo is a real, living, individual human being. It continues:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure which involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research and experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned).
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Glasgow Health Board (Housing)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for his presence. He will appreciate that, as we conclude our all-night sitting, workers at Woodilee and Stoneyetts will have just finished their night shift. I am sure that we all anxious about the fact that they will be returning to housing conditions which fall far short of the type of environment that we want for people who do so much for the Health Service in my constituency.
The Minister is aware of the history of the problem. There are 100 houses in Woodilee and Stoneyetts. The campaign for the improvement of those houses began some time ago, and it is essential bearing in mind the appalling conditions in which some of my constituents have to live. The Minister was kind enough to afford me a meeting in St. Andrew's house on 1 June. We discussed the problems. Following that meeting—I was delighted with the Minister's response — he announced that an extra £6 million would be made available to the Greater Glasgow health board for the maintenance and improvement of those properties and that £250,000 of it would be allocated to Woodilee and Stoneyetts. The Minister also assured me that he would monitor the matter.
I have called for this debate because I should like to see what evidence there is of the Minister acting in that way. Monitoring is essential if we are to achieve what we want to achieve. When I met representatives of the health board on 1 November, they were not able to assure me that a start had been made. Indeed, the tenders had not been issued. I am sure that the Minister was greatly disappointed at that, in view of the additional allocation that he made. I am sure that, like me, the Minister has an eye on the financial year. I was disappointed to learn this week that, although the contractors have made a superficial appearance, there is no evidence that any real work has been done. I fear for the loss of the £250,000, which is welcome, although it is not an enormous sum. I am much more worried that, if the health board does not spend the money that is available in this financial year, it will be much more difficult for the Minister to endorse the rolling programme, in spite of his good intentions.
It is not enough to say that I am worried about the condition of the houses. I therefore invite the Minister to visit my constituency to see Woodilee and Stoneyetts for himself. If he did that it would be part of the monitoring process, and we might then make the type of progress that has not been made, although I think that the Minister wanted to make progress on 1 June. Even before he arrives, I would like him to send a surveyor so that he can be given professional advice on existing structural conditions. I hope that the Minister will come to Woodilee and Stoneyetts in due course, and I hope that it will not be too long before he does so.
The Minister is aware that I am referring to two old psychiatric hospitals. In Woodilee there are between 900 and 1,000 beds, and at Stoneyetts there are 140 beds, made up of six 40-bed villas. There is a large number of psychogeriatric patients, and I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that even today in Stoneyetts and Woodilee,


as elsewhere, we have an absolutely devoted staff that is dedicated to its work and entitled to far better housing than the Greater Glasgow health board is prepared to provide.
The Health Service in my constituency, as elsewhere in Scotland, has experienced cuts. I shall not dwell on that, but, if the Minister is not convinced, all the more reason for him to accept my invitation. He will certainly be unable to persuade the nurses and those who work in those hospitals that the cuts are merely in their imagination. The staff are working longer hours to make up for inadequacies.
There are no changing facilities for staff at Woodilee, and they are using patient facilities. That in itself is indefensible, but to encourage these people to return to houses that are vastly inferior to any reasonable standard is something that I know the House will not accept.
If the Minister accepts my invitation, he will see houses, most of which were built at Woodilee in 1875 and at Stoneyetts in approximately 1912. He will see evidence of precious few repairs and he will award no prizes at all for maintenance. He will see that virtually all the houses are damp and he will learn that 90 per cent. are in need of rewiring. He will see that most of the houses are far from wind and watertight, with roofs leaking, poor guttering, windows in need of repair and outside stairways which are far from secure.
I would like the hon. Gentleman to meet some of my constituents, who can explain their cases much more eloquently than I can. For example, Mrs. Barrie of 12 Carriesbrook puts on a switch and finds that lights other than those expected come on. I am sure that Mrs. Barrie is committed to the Christmas spirit, but that is extending things just a little too far. In addition, it is expensive and dangerous.
The Minister will, I hope, meet Willie Copeland, who has two children aged seven and four. Willie must pay between £450 and £500 a year for a fireplace to heat one room and to keep hot water. Another constituent, Jim Anderson, must pay £400 a year for his gas bill, even though, like most houses, his, too, has only one fireplace.
The same is true of apartments 3, 4 and 5 in this development. When the Minister comes—I am sure he will confirm a visit in his reply—he will meet folks like Evelyn Johnson, Ricky McManus, Rona Anderson and Ciz McMullen. They will tell the Minister—and I shall support them — that they want central heating, dampproof coursing, modern bathrooms and kitchens, new windows, rewiring and modern plumbing and sewerage arrangements. They are absolutely right to ask for each of those amenities and services. It is the very least we expect to meet modern housing standards.
Those of my constituents who are in such houses are aware that modernisation has taken place in the Strathkelvin and Monklands district council schemes. They want similar modernisation. If those of my constituents who are in modernised district council schemes were here they would support fully the argument for similar arrangements to be made for those who work for the Health Service. I make that point not because Health Service workers are envious of council tenants whose houses have been modernised but to confirm that it is right that in both circumstances tenants should be provided with the same opportunity.
We want our staff to live in reasonable conditions. The health board has acknowledged that by reducing rents people are living in inferior conditions. I wish to put on record the response of Mr. Philip Tilley, the Secretary of the Woodilee tenants association. When writing to the district administrator of the Greater Glasgow health board on 9 July 1983 Mr. Tilley said:
A number of concerned tenants have asked the committee to write to you regarding your letter dated 22nd June 1983 informing us of the proposed abatement of rent and when it was to be implemented.
What concerns the tenants is that the abatement will in some way affect their rights as tenants and their right to have the repairs and improvements carried out. As you will appreciate, we do not feel that a 30 per cent. abatement would be adequate compensation for sub-standard housing or preferable if our rights were to be affected in any way. The tenants' committee would therefore ask that you give your assurance that the abatement in no way affects our rights as tenants.
We would also like to take this opportunity to enquire as to whether or not the £40,000 to £45,000 revenue per annum, from the Woodilee houses alone, might not be used to carry out the repairs. We would feel it only just that the rent we are paying should go to improving the properties.
In the light of recent government statements regarding the health service it would seem to us that the likelihood of these improvements being done grows increasingly slim. We would also be interested as to whether or not the government's plans might in any way affect your hopes that the improvements will be carried out this year.
We hope to hear from you in the near future. Yours faithfully, Philip Tilley".
The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues have often stated that the National Health Service is safe in their hands. Until these improvements take place my view is that the health of my constituents is not as yet safe in the hands of the Government. I should like an assurance on that point. We are seeking an improvement which represents a modern aspect of the National Health Service—and nothing less. Until recently the water supply of two houses was provided by fire engines. When some empty houses at Stoneyetts caught fire it was not very long before they were engulfed in flames and disappeared because of the absence of fire walls. I do not wish to spread fear and panic, but that is clearly unacceptable. I am sure the Minister would not wish to defend it.
The health of the tenants is a worry. There is evidence that children are suffering from kidney problems caused by dampness. One lady takes her family to live with her mother throughout the winter. I am sure that such circumstances are unacceptable to the House. In the absence of a positive response from the Government, Stoneyetts and Woodilee represent the Cinderella of the NHS in Scotland. My constituents would not expect me to accept that and to say nothing.
I have campaigned with the good people of Stoneyetts and Woodilee and COHSE to seek improvements in the houses, to ensure not what Scottish people would call a lick and a promise, but the full-scale modernisation to which those good people are entitled.
I thank the Minister for listening to the debate and for the response that he is about to make. I assure him that my constituents will consider his remarks carefully, because they will want to see for the people of Stoneyetts and Woodilee, not the bleak future that seems to be in store, but the sort of improvements that can only add to the status of the NHS in Scotland, for which the Minister has a major responsibility.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands. West (Mr. Clarke) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the condition of houses provided by the Greater Glasgow health board at Woodilee and Stoneyetts hospitals for the benefit of staff.
I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in the matter, about which he came to see me in June. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that the House is in a calmer mood than it was when he first attempted to initiate this debate on 21 November. I am sure that his constituents will be impressed by the fact that it is 9.21 am and we have waited through the night for the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), in whose constituency some of the houses lie, would like to have been present, but he has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. He is on parliamentary business in Edinburgh. Given the length of time that the business is taking, I suspect that my hon. Friend would prefer to have been here.
Hon. Members will know that all NHS property should be maintained to a satisfactory standard. Unfortunately, the standard of maintenance in the past has not always been as good as it might have been. The hon. Gentleman's description of the houses at Woodilees and Stoneyetts confirms that. The problem has been increasingly apparent in recent years.
In March 1980 it was agreed with the chairmen of health boards to set up a group — called the capital steering group—to review the health capital building programme. The group soon decided that a condition survey of existing stock was essential to its work. Such a survey was carried out, being completed early in 1981. The returns made it clear for the first time that a severe problem had built up over many years which could not be solved rapidly from within the normal revenue allocations of boards. It was estimated that the sum required to put matters right would be over £200 million. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend and I decided to provide extra resources from capital funds to attempt to reduce the backlog. Inevitably, it takes time to work up programmes, but we were able to make a start by allocating an initial £6·5 million to boards in the financial year 1983–84 for the purpose. So good was the uptake that we were subsequently able to increase the amount provided in that year to £9·4 million. As their upgrading programme developed, boards sought a total of £16·8 million for the current financial year.
We agreed to meet the whole cost of those programmes and, in the light of progress during the year, we have been able to provide additional amounts, so that, by the end of the year, we expect the total amount allocated to exceed £18·5 million. The House will not expect me to give an open-ended commitment for the future, but we are committed to tackling seriously and systematically the situation that has developed, and I expect, at worst, to maintain the allocation at this year's level.
I expect to learn early in the new year just how much boards themselves consider they can realistically tackle. I shall do what I can to provide the necessary resources. Boards are, I know, fully stretched in preparing suitable schemes. A great amount of detailed planning and

negotiation is entailed, and the greatest care has to be taken to ensure that the funds are used to maximum benefit and are fully accounted for.
Nevertheless, having made a useful start, it is important and necessary to maintain momentum in tackling the very serious backlog maintenance problem. Of course we shall also have to take account of other demands for capital funds for new and replacement building. The responsibility for maintenance and for determining the priorities for the use of the funds made available naturally rests with the health boards. It is understandable that pressure from the public leads boards to think first about devoting resources to matters that affect patients most directly.
But it is still short-sighted to neglect maintenance altogether, and I have made that quite clear to boards. The money to which I referred earlier is being provided in an endeavour by my Department to get things back to rights. The buildings which can be improved and restored to a satisfactory condition will be upgraded in accordance with programmes prepared by them from the-special allocation.
Of course, I also expect boards to carry out routine maintenance from their own resources. It would be quite wrong for them to perpetuate the errors of the past. In addition, new accommodation is constantly being provided, either directly from central funds or from the boards' own ordinary capital programmes. Some of the worst hospital accommodation has been closed and patients are being treated in new or upgraded wards. Total capital expenditure this year will be well over £100 million.
I turn now to the position of the Greater Glasgow health board. The board has benefited from the special allocation. Work to the value of over £3 million was carried out last year, and more than £6 million is expected to be spent on backlog maintenance by the end of March. It is for the board itself to determine where the money should be spent, and it is natural that the first thought should be to improve patient accommodation. Staff housing has, however, not been neglected.
I have referred already to the meeting that I had with the hon. Member for Monklands, West in June. I welcomed that meeting and the very fair way in which he made his views known, just as he has made them known today. I was able to tell him then that the Greater Glasgow health board was anxious to proceed with necessary upgrading work to staff houses in its care. It proposed to allocate £250,000 to this work out of the total of £6 million which it had sought and which had been allocated for the current year. It was its intention that part of that money would be spent on staff housing at Woodilee and Stoneyetts hospitals. Had that been its only concern, I have no doubt that work would have been well under way, if not completed, by now.
However, preparatory work for a wide range of schemes affecting much of the stock has taken a good deal of time. A major programme is being carried out at Woodilee hospital on various works costing £500,000. I hope that those staff who look around and think that there may be cuts in the Health Service will consider that work which is going on in their own hospital at Woodilee. They might then realise that those cuts are more imaginary than real. Indeed, we are spending more money than ever before on the Health Service.
Those parts of the hospital that have benefited include wards one to four, wards five and six, the pharmacy, the laundry, Craigie house and Woodilee house. As an


extension of that work a start has been made on upgrading the houses at Fauldhead and Woodilee cottages and at Stoneyetts. I am informed that the first stage of the work—a drainage contract involving houses in Carresbrooke avenue and Marweed avenue, Fauldhead, is due to be completed today. Similar work involving the houses in Blairhill avenue and Rutherford avenue and the Woodilee cottages is due to be completed on 10 January, and equivalent work at Stoneyetts, which is also under way, is due for completion on 18 January.
Going beyond this necessary preliminary work, a contract has been agreed covering the external work on the houses in Carresbrooke avenue and Robb terrace, Fauldhead; Woodilee cottages Nos. 15 to 18, and two houses at Stoneyetts. This work, which will cost in the region of £200,000, will commence on 7 January 1985, and the board is pressing ahead with the details necessary to let a further contract for the phase of the operations covering Marwood avenue, Rutherford avenue, Blairhill avenue, all at Fauldhead, and the remaining cottages Nos. 1 to 14 at Woodilee.
If weather conditions remain favourable, the work in phase one should be completed by the end of the financial year. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's specific point about ensuring that the work was done in a financial year.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but in saying,
If the weather conditions remain favourable",
is he not confirming my criticism that the work should have started much earlier during the summer months? Has he had an explanation from the Greater Glasgow health board as to why that did not happen?

Mr. MacKay: I appreciate that it would be nice if all building work could be done in the summer months, but that is not possible. The building industry would not like that for a start.
I mentioned that the Greater Glasgow health board has a number of new building projects, schemes and problems of this nature on its books. Therefore, its staff resources have to be divided among those planning matters. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his previous incarnation in local authorities, it takes time to draw up specifications and get tenders. But I hope that, if the weather conditions remain favourable, the first phase should be completed by the end of the financial year and the second phase should proceed immediately thereafter.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the Minister's reference to my previous involvement in local government, it is necessary, in the light of my invitation to the Minister to come to my constituency, to say that I cannot think of any local authority which, having been given money by his Department, then waited five months without presenting evidence that it was anxious to spend the money.

Mr. MacKay: The Greater Glasgow health board is anxious to spend the money. Indeed, it is anxious that phase two should proceed immediately after phase one. Any remaining external work and such other internal work, including re-wiring, as the board decides to carry out will be met from the 1985–86 allocation.
The board is responsible for many other staff houses associated with hospitals throughout its area. While I have concentrated on the houses which are the subject of this debate, I know that the board is carefully considering the improvements which are required to its remaining housing stock, and also, importantly—this is a matter that I wish to develop a little — the extent to which it can now declare staff houses surplus to requirements and earn some income from their disposal.
Concern about under-used residential property in the NHS is widespread. I have recently arranged for copies of a report, carried out for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, to be issued to boards in Scotland, and they have been asked to look closely at their residential accommodation with a view to identifying and disposing of all that is not needed.
I want to make it clear that there is no threat to tenants of NHS houses who do not wish or cannot afford to buy their houses. We simply want them to have the opportunity to do so. Health boards have always shown themselves to be good landlords and the guidelines that I have laid sown should ensure that they continue to do so.
Officials of the board met members of the Woodilee tenants association early in November to tell them of their plans for improving the houses. Since then they are to be congratulated on the progress that has been made and on keeping in close touch with the tenants association. When the last meeting took place, a further meeting was arranged for 21 December to review progress. I hope that that meeting will be an opportunity both to review the real progress that has been made and to discuss the board's proposals for future improvements.
The hon. Gentleman has been constructive in his discussions with me and in the attention that he has paid to this important matter. I hope that if he attends that meeting on Friday, as I think he intends to do, he will be able to hear further details of the progress that I have outlined today. He will also be able to raise, along with his constituents, some specific points.
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will keep me informed of progress, and I shall bear in mind his invitation to pay a visit to his constituency. I was flattered that he felt that a visit from me would be such a catalyst that work would progress apace and almost instantly. I hope that the work will progress apace without the necessity of a visit from me to stimulate it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep me informed, and I hope that before next winter, certainly, his constituents will be living in upgraded and much improved houses.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Ten o'clock am.